Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blockparty


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was no consensus. Reviewing the arguments by various parties the end result was a stalemate. If there are no objections, I may be WP:BOLD and merge this with another page, then disambiguate. RFerreira (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Blockparty

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Doesn't seem notable to me. JöиÁ†ĥăИ — Quality, not quantity. 21:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete No doubt the group exists and seems to be growing in popularity, but I can't see anything which defines it to be notable. scope_creep (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I just added the point that Blockparty's unique position (paired with a non-demoscene event) makes it a vehicle for outreach and introduction, which isn't found (to my knowledge) anywhere else in the demoscene, past or present. Myself248 (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; it might end up notable someday, but it doesn't look like it's quite there yet. &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the unrelated Bloc Party. MLA (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, should redirect to block party. Chubbles (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is currently the largest demo party in North America and had presenters that are very notable in the demoscene. If this article deserves deletion, then you might as well delete every other party indicated on Wikipedia's List of demoparties, as some are and were far smaller and less "notable" than Blockparty. --Froggy (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems just as notable as any other demoparty, if not more -- firstly because it hasn't fizzled or flopped yet, secondly because it's in north america, which is something of an anomaly in the "scene". Perhaps the article could make a better case for notability, but deleting it before people have a chance to expand it would seem to throw the baby out with the bathwater. 68.43.149.99 (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete unnotable, unencyclopaedic topic. And yes, I will AfD the demo party other articles as well. &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 17:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, why don't you also add to the AfD pile the tens of thousands of articles on minor villages and cities that probably aren't "unencyclopaedic" as well? In fact, if this article isn't notable (which it is) you might as well delete three-fourths of Wikipedia's articles since they're likely not notable either. --Froggy (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! You win the "First one to mention the 'might as well delete everything' pseudo-argument"  prize!  The "First one to cry 'Censorship!'" prize is still up for grabs, though.  Any takers?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is only a pseudo-argument because it seems that selective criteria is often used to determine notable and what is not on Wikipedia. Nice try at the personal attack, though, but it just wasn't funny.  Also, it does not address or support the core assertion by the nominator that the subject at hand isn't notable.  I am more interested in offering educational, interesting and accurate  information on topics.  You believe this article has no value.  I believe that we should be constructive on the issue versus destructive.  We will see how the vote turns out, I guess. --Froggy (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, why don't you also add to the AfD pile the tens of thousands of articles on minor villages and cities that probably aren't "unencyclopaedic" as well? &mdash; Well, they happen to be notable, I guess. Or it could also be that I don't care about such trivial topics enough so that I would waste my time with going through the AfD process of putting them up for deletion. In any case, I do not think this topic is interesting enough to be kept. Although I am usually an inclusionist, I can also vote for delete when it happens to be completely uninteresting stuff. &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli II (talk · contribs) 21:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and expand. Since when does lack of "interest" in a subject determine the article's worth? Your total disinterest in the subject should not determine the status of this article. As you eloquently put it "I will AfD the demo party other articles as well". This essentially discredits your opinion in my book, as it obviously shows that you have no knowledge of the subject at hand. The demoscene is one of the most important computer subcultures in existence, and Blockparty is the only remaining demoparty in all of North America. (Temporarily out of retirement to rectify this injustice) 65.189.182.171 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 03:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Temporary out of retirement Keep article is on the SOLE US Demoparty still in existance. Each of the speakers at it was notable on their own right, your saying their collaboration wasnt notable. By that logic lets delete the United Nations then, although each member is important, their group actions arent. Or lets delete the United States Senate, members are notable, oh right but their collaborative efforts arent. Nom your logic fails to make sense here, and your nom is a perfect example of WP:JNN.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 18:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean except for the hundreds, if not thousands, of books, papers, articles and documentaries written about the UN or the Senate? Apples with apples, if you please.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. // Gargaj (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't see how it's not notable, it's one of the few demoparties in the United States and probably the biggest one. --Tobias Lind (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand per ALKIVAR et al. The only argument for the deletion of this article so far has been the 'I have not heard of it, so it cannot be notable' one. KovacsUr (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - does seem a good example of this genre of event, even though I admit it is only weakly notable. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - No apparent notability or importance. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom. (I took a little while, didn't I? :D) Jonathan — Quality, not quantity. 22:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Else just go and delete Game_Developers_Conference et al also. Strange opinion on worthy content some guys seem to have here. Lighten up. Jarscience (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. 90.204.88.35 (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - North American demoparties are significantly more rare than their European equivalents and as such this demoparty has - in my opinion - significant notability as well. Additionally, the article is well-written (though a bit short) enough to stay. -mrbartjens (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete being a demoscener I have never heard or seen anything from/about this so called demoparty stefan 4:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the Pouet.net entry for Blockparty and its entries/demos, and here is the website and the collection of additional items released at the party. Here is the entry at demoparty.net. --72.93.254.193 (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * so all in all (including a disk mag that would have been released anyways, and an invite intro) you have 15 releases. Ever. What a notable demoparty! Adding a demoparty to an encyclopedia just because it's location would mean we could practically add any demoparty just because "hey! it's this and that's town only demoparty!". Release wise and scene wise your so called demoparty doesn't touch many demosceners and if it doesn't touch us. Who cares about? Notable my ass. stefan 12:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.226.228 (talk)
 * It sounds like you're hinting that the primary purpose of the article in question is self-promotion, which of course is against wikipedia rules. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Account only has this single edit. // Gargaj (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Trying to discrediting me for being a resting Wikipedian doesn't change the fact that I am a part of the demoscene community and generally know how the demoscene works and how we measure magnitude of a demoparty. Nobody remembers/cares about demoparties that doesn't have quality/quantity releases. You if anyone should know that, Gargaj. Blockparty has neither. Nor does it have any kind of "new" thinking that an encyclopedic topic needs to be notable if it's not well known. It's just a really small demoparty in USA. Can i add a Skogome demoparty to Wikipedia? -Afterall, if I would arrange a demoparty it would for sure be Skogome's only demoparty. stefan 22:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.226.228 (talk)
 * Delete The article does not establish notability. The wording of the article also smells of promotion rather then encyclopedic. Mikemill (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * keep please it is a important subject and erasing does not help our encyclopedia see also WP:IAR why deletion of this articles is wrong yuckfoo (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Alkivar. Seems notable enough and is presented in a coherent fashion.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete nn as a club is. It's a big club, but that's the impression I get of it. Greswik (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.