Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superior Art Creations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[]
- Superior_Art_Creations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)
This group is not relevant in the demo scene or any other context that would justify the existence of this page on wikipedia. I see violation of WP:BIO and possibly WP:COI since this page was most likely created by members of that group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qdr (talk • contribs) 2007/05/08 04:25:08
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[]
- Delete per WP:COI and WP:CORP. The article fails the Primary Criterion of WP:CORP that there are no independent, reliable, non-trivial and non-autobiography secondary sources to pass the notability criteria. — Indon (reply) — 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[]
- Keep as the subject is notable within its field and has had repeated non-trivial coverage by the French media. SAC is one the oldest and most predominant art-warez groups alive, and commonly seen if you've ever downloaded anything using bittorrent. From what I've heard, not that I would know of course. ;-) RFerreira 19:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[]
- WTF KEEP - SAC is one of the most important artgroups in the demoscene - just check any of the SACpacks. // Gargaj 19:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[]
- Keep per RFerreira. --Myles Long 19:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[]
- Keep. Clearly notable within its field. Allegations assuming anti-WP:AGF are wholly inappropriate without any evidence whatsoever in an AfD. Xihr 20:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[]
- Keep claim of WP:COI is completely invalid... article was created by User:R.123 who is not and has never been associated with SAC... it was cleaned up by a member of SAC (User:Cumbrowski) which is entirely acceptable per policy. Group is highly well known, with major media coverage, and massive distribtion. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[]
- keep please notable in its niche with coverage by magazines and books too yuckfoo 00:18, 13 May 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.