Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renaissance (demogroup)

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 redirect to Zone 66. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 05:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance (demogroup)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Λeternus ^(talk) 10:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant content to Zone 66, their only notable product. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other activities listed in the article are notable, such as reverse-engineering how the Gravis Ultrasound worked and releasing the information ahead of Gravis' own SDK; also, creating the PMODE and PMODE/W 32-bit DOS extender was an open-source activity before the movement was formally defined. Article should stay, but with additional references. --Trixter (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer any reliable sources that confirm this? --Λeternus ^(talk) 07:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources in online diskmags, BBS file archives, etc. from the 1990s when the group was active. References to these online files can be obtained; whether or not those are considered reliable sources, I am not sure. --Trixter (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Trixter, reliable sources will have some sort of editorial control and therefore come from some position of vetted authority czar ♔ 15:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the demoscene time period in question (1990s) was only documented on BBS discussions and files, and IRC chats and Usenet groups, I can't imagine what a reliable source would be from that time period. Demoscene culture was only rarely mentioned in magazines. Clearly the events and achievements occurred; the files themselves are evidence. But I can't make those sources fit Wikipedia's definition of what a reliable source should be. --Trixter (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trixter, we are not doubting the existence of the events and demogroups. But merely existing is not enough to establish notability in Wikipedia. Please see WP:N. Also, don't forget that there are many demoscene-related topics that have been covered by reliable sources. The demoscene itself, for example, is clearly notable, because it has been discussed by multiple reputable sources. Unfortunately, Renaissance doesn't seem to have had the same fate. --Λeternus ^(talk) 18:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this list is going to need some revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Viznut/Deletionist_attacks_against_demoscene_articles Numtek (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could make the same list for any subfield. Article topics without coverage in reliable sources (?) are invariably deleted (or redirected). WP has articles about all sorts of things, but the minimum requirement is that we can at least source them to some expert facts with some editorial backing. czar ♔ 03:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go https://www.scene.org/search.php?search=Renaissance&start=0 and http://www.pouet.net/groups.php?which=544 Numtek (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are lists of files as far as I can tell. It would take original research to say anything about them. The page on reliable sources explains more about this. I also recommend the links off of WP:42. czar ♔ 22:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zone 66. Finding nothing from reliable sources or a WP:VG/RS search. Current article is all unsourced fan stuff. Title is useful, however, as a redirect term to their only notable game (as Salv put it), though I'd add that I wasn't able to find much on that game either (it'll likely end up deleted if print sources don't show up). Anyway, though I see nothing to merge, redirects are cheap, and that's the way to go when no sources are available. czar ♔ 17:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thanks for the useful and civil discussion. Unfortunately, WP:WHYN is persuasive here. There is not adequate reliable coverage to write a verifiable article on this topic. ~KvnG 16:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.