Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mfx (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. As pointed out, there are no reliable independent sources here, and without them, there can be no verifiability. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Mfx
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not sure how this article survived its first deletion nomination. Nothing in it establishes notability. Λeternus (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete makes sense to me. I can't tell if this group still exists, but the evidence is that the demogroup scene is quite fluid, which is in general an issue for establishing notability. There are 45 pages under the category Demogroups. Some of the pages do have references, so the only difference with this one is the lack thereof. LaMona (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I would imagine that the reason this article "survived its first deletion nomination" would be the nineteen separate 1st place demoscene awards.  MEP MEP1697 (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But we need reliable sources to confirm this. We can't take the information on faith. See WP:V and WP:RS. Without reliable sources, the notability cannot be established. --Λeternus (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that merely having mentions in reliable sources isn't sufficient, see WP:GNG for the whole requirement for notability. -- intgr [talk] 12:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 21:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - It's amazing to see how things look so different between 2008 and now ... Anyway per above no evidence of notability ... or even it exists for that matter. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  23:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep While this article is a stub. mfx is still one of the most prominent demo groups, and as far as I know, the only one of whose releases have been taken into fine art collections (their work Cannapaceus is in the VILKE collection). Besides demoscene circles their work have been shown in several art museums (at least Kiasma, Kerava art museum, Pori art museum, Jyväskylä art museum), galleries and media-art festivals, most notably Ars Electronica. User aeternus claims that there are no reliable sources to check whether mfx productions have won demoscene awards, which is total bullshit. pouet.net is the place to check how competitions at demoparties have gone and it is a fully reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.206.144 (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Pouet.net isn't a useful source for establishing notability because they cover all demogroups and events regardless of their significance, and their coverage is limited to collecting some metadata, not "significant coverage". See WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH for what "notability" means in Wikipedia. -- intgr [talk] 19:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

So you take the same approach on sites publishing sport results, and regard them as not notable? Competition results at pouet are facts. And if you regard them as meaningless, you should just go on and delete the whole demoscene article in wikipedia. But, of course it does seem like what this attack is aiming to in the end. This current attack on demoscene articles by the user Aeternus is quite ridiculous, I'd update the article by myself but don't really want to spend time on making content on a site where deletionists run amok attacking things based on their personal views. anyway, some references, found in 15mins with google: articles in english: catalog of ars electronica from 2009, http://www.aec.at/humannature/wp-content/files/2009/06/FE09_AnimationsFestival_FolderA5_FIN_screen.pdf mfx in mustekala.info, on an article about history of demoscene http://www.mustekala.info/node/35590

articles in finnish: mfx in the intel demo competition http://dome.fi/pelit/ajankohtaista/suomalaisryhma-mfx-intelin-demokilpailun-finaalissa mfx interviewed in digitoday http://www.digitoday.fi/viihde/2008/08/04/demoskenekin-muuttuu/200820081/66 page for the exhibition at Kerava art museum, http://www.sinkka.fi/nayttely/vilketta-ja-tajunnanvirtaa/ article about the exhibition in kerava http://www.kontrasti.org/vilketta-ja-tajunnanvirtaa-sahkoisen-taiteen-lahihistoriaa/ blog post about the exhibition http://afilalapices.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/vilketta-ja-tajunnanvirtaa-keravan-taidemuseo/ article about the exhibition in keski-uusimaa (behind paywall unfortunately) http://www.lehtiluukku.fi/pub?id=36622 home page of the VILKE collection http://www.vilkecollection.fi/ article in Helsingin sanomat about the exhibition in kerava (Helsingin sanomat is the biggest newspaper of finland) they use image of Cannapaceus by mfx in the article http://www.hs.fi/kulttuuri/a1380259521568 the exhibition mentioned in kulttuurihaitari http://www.kulttuurihaitari.fi/suomalaista-topselitaidetta-1970-luvulta-nykypaivaan/ mfx cannapaceus in the national filmography of finland http://www.elonet.fi/fi/elokuva/1486341 mfx demos being shown in jyväskylä at the opening of a web gallery: http://www.liveherring.org/2009-2013/ mfx demos as part of demowall, held at Kiasma (the national fine art museum of finland) http://www.demowall.org/ALT-demoseina-digitaalista-ilotulittelua-auringonlaskusta-aamuyohon.pdf article about demowall in dome.fi http://dome.fi/pelit/ajankohtaista/alt-jarjestaa-50-000-ihmisen-demobileet-helsingissa mfx member uncle-x coming as a quest of honor to a demoscene event in tampere in september 2014 mfx member at the first ever seminar held about demoscene at an art university: http://www.mustekala.info/node/35579 & http://www.mustekala.info/node/35577 mfx demo cognoscere shown at a media-artist meeting in jyväskylä http://liveherring.blogspot.fi/2009_05_01_archive.html

several of mfx demos have been mentioned also in paper mags like windows 100 and some others — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.206.144 (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * First, please take a deep breath and understand that I am trying to help you. I made an effort to look out for qualifying sources and came up empty. I would vote to keep, but I have to concede that mfx doesn't seem to qualify for notability. Beware that Aeternus's explanations of the requirements have been somewhat misleading.
 * > So you take the same approach on sites publishing sport results, and regard them as not notable?
 * Yes, that is correct. Just having results published does not make an athlete notable. You need other sources with significant coverage about the subject to establish notability (see WP:GNG for the whole criteria). Not simply name-dropping, but for example, articles talking about the group's history, or interviews with mfx members about the group, etc., in published sources. Once notability is established, such facts you mention can be incorporated to the article, but notability is the primary requirement for having an article in the first place.
 * I checked many of your links and mere namedropping is how I would describe them. Please take the time to get familiar with Wikipedia general notability guideline and pick out sources that qualify all the criteria, instead of posting a set of Google search results. -- intgr [talk] 12:23, 11 September 2014 (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.