Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comp.sys.sinclair Crap Games Competition

Comp.sys.sinclair Crap Games Competition

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

Non-notable newsgroup pleasantry, everybody who has heard of the competition has entered it. No considerable coverage outside of special interest publications related to the Spectrum. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:PAPER and I fail to see what would be gained by deleting this article. There is no need to be a killjoy. Besides, the fact that the competition has been running for some 15 years now and continues to attract a considerable number of entries every year indicates that it isn't on the same level as 'things made up in school one day'. Sure, it may not appear in reliable sources; but that's common of Internet culture, and it's more notable than you think. Conflict disclosure: I have entered it a couple of times. PT (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The exact quote from the RetroGamer Roundup is as follows

"[we've got] here a link to the comp.sys.sinclair Crap Games Competition from 2010, that's a newsgroup that's been running an annual contest for some time to create awful games on the Spectrum; well they don't need to create awful games, there were some already made and available for sale, I think you'll find, Dizzy not being one of them."

"I'm looking at the video he's posted for the crap games, and I don't know why, but there's about a ten-minute section of a flashing logo (I guess someone's quite proud of their logo), and then like one second of gameplay. But yeah I'm gonna have to bookmark that"

I've put this here because it's rather tedious to find, appearing about 5 hours in to a 6 hour audio file. I'm not claiming that it establishes notability, just making the questioned evidence more readily available. PT (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is really just "I like it". You should show how it does satisfy the general notability guidelines (don't waste your time with that!) or why it should be a special case (I don't think "it's been around for 15 years" is a good enough argument). Wenttomowameadow (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion (not shared by WP policy, I realise) that Internet culture as a whole is a special case, because elements thereof typically have to become very notable before the kinds of things WP takes as RS pick up on them. Compare: a completely arbitrary example I found very quickly of a school with 100 pupils (and therefore an intake of about 15 per year) whose only reference is that school's website (a self-published source, mark you), versus an established annual competition with around 20 participants per year (with a significant turnover and international range), referenced by several of the key websites of an admittedly niche hobby. I expect your gut reaction to the first is to consider it notable, and it probably stands up better to the GNG, but I consider that in the basic sense of the word (rather than as defined by WP policy), if the former is notable then so is the latter. It's not just that I "like it", it's that WP policy has a systemic bias against online communities. PT (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would be an actual problem if Wikipedia was the only site on the Internet. I don't understand why people choose to stick with Wikipedia when they don't like its guidelines, instead of just putting the content somewhere else. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]