Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unreal (demo) (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   no consensus. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

There was a previous nomination for the deletion of this article, where most participants voted with keep but didn't provide any reasonable arguments, mostly using WP:ITSNOTABLE. (The process took place in 2006, so the notability guideline may have been more loose and less practiced.) From what is written, this seems to be a notable demo but no evidence is provided in the article. I made a search with Google but I didn't find any reliable source documenting this. Λeternus (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Λeternus (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Too soon to delete, I think. Yes the article has no sources, but there has been no request for sources tag inserted. I think the page should be tagged for sources and left like that for a lengthy period (6 months?) to attract editors who may be able to provide those sources. Since we have an article on demos there must be notable demos out there and this may be one of them. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, it is surprising that there is no PC Demos section in that Demo acticle - so there is no direct way a reader/interested editor could locate the Unreal (demo) article from the Demo article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeh, that article you linked to is about demos made by prospective employees to companies, by companies to the press, etc. Demos released by publishers to players are not, it would seem, covered at all. Anarchangel (talk) 02:29, 16 August 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 00:35, 21 August 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 02:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: This article has been around since 2006, so clearly it is not too soon to delete it. Wikipedia editors know (or they should know) that every article needs to be based on reliable sources, so there can't be any excuses. --Λeternus (talk) 07:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I find the above comment both silly and offensive. The age of the article has nothing to do with its deletion. However, good editors know that extra caution should be shown before deleting long-standing articles. If you really want sources for the article, and can't find any yourself (you said you used google - but google is not an ideal source for specialist tech subjects from the early 1990s) then why don't you place some fact tags and so on into the article? If those fact tags remain unanswered after several months - only then can you have legitimate suspicions that there are no sources, and assert "article needs to be based on reliable sources", and use that as an argument for deletion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And about its notability - take a look at some of those AfD comments back in 2006: "an awesome demo, and it is one of the most widely-distributed too. I think any demo that placed at Assembly is notable enough for an article";"widely identified as helping launch the demoscene on the IBM PC platform"; "Demos are central to the history of the proliferation of 3D computing"; "the starter for the demoscene on the PC platform"; "a notable milestone for the PC demoscene",; "...influential albums and even singles are afforded their own pages on Wikipedia. I don't see why policy should be different for demoscene productions -- unless you want to argue that the demoscene is less worthy of historic documentation than the music industry, and that is shaky ground". What we see here is notability expressed through the common knowledge of the respondents to that AfD. That common knowledge of this demo has obviously diminished since then - but notability on Wikipedia means notable in the subject field of the article - not the degree of notability amongst the overall population. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability on Wikipedia means the subject has been covered by multiple reliable sources. It is that simple. --Λeternus (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that it is not that simple in practice. This is an obscure technical subject from the 1990s - if there are sources they will be very specialized and hard to access ones. Do you have access to PC magazines from the early 1990s? Very few people will have. This is before even the era of early PC leisure and games magazines that collectors might have. That is why I was suggesting simply tagging the article for sources and leaving it at that for a decent period of time to attract editors who could access those sources. The article is doing no harm as it is, so I don't see a reason to rush to delete - especially since an earlier AfD so firmly voted "Keep".
 * 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.