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 to delete. Referencing appears to have improved greatly since article was nominated for deletion. W.marsh 17:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Iron Ring Clock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

nn clock, vanity article written by clock's engineer, zero non-wikipedia/mirror Google hits. Deprodded by anon, so you can take your five days here instead. Delete. Fethers 05:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you didn't even nominate the article correctly. And second, you still have not contacted the original owner for your intended deletion. Keep 203.218.207.20 05:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I fixed the double-indent. Mr. Anonymous Reverter, since you're here clearly I nominated the article correctly, and I have no need to contact "the original owner" of the article. I'd suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion and WP:OWN. Fethers 05:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you I am not the owner of the article just a random user like yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.207.20 (talk • contribs)

• Weak keep - I am torn on this one, the lack of google hits is a problem but there is a source in the article that states it is well-known on campus, and god knows we keep plenty of articles on random things that are only notable to a narrow population.--Dmz5 05:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge to McMaster University and Delete lack of ghits, fails WP:N, "well-known on campus" is not a valid reason for an article to be included in a world wide encyclopedia. Copysan 06:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if I agree or not with that statement, but the fact is a lot of editors believe that to be a valid reason for inclusion and there is no set policy per se that defines the notability of any given object. Something like this falls right into the cracks of what is and isnt notable.--Dmz5 06:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." from WP:N. You may say that this is a guideline, not a policy, so it does not neccessarily apply. But remember that if there are no "non-trivial published works" about the subject, then it cannot fulfill WP:V (that is policy) and therefore should be deleted. Copysan 09:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable artwork. Have we looked for off campus comments? DGG 06:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google News search and a straight Google search, like I said up above. I didn't get anything that wasn't this article or a mirror of the content. I mean, if I found SOME sort of external anything about the clock, I'd mention it. As it is, it just looks like it's...well, a clock. Fethers 07:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete universities have student newspapers, which often publish articles about things which are "well-known on campus", but all there is is this trivial reference. The award site mentioned doesn't mention them anywhere. No way that we can verify the facts presented, therefore it is not suitable for Wikipedia. Demiurge 10:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm the original author, so which other way would I vote? I 'am' one of the team who built the clock, but I don't believe that I wrote the article in a self-promoting way. Edit history isn't brimming with contributions, but I would suggest that there are about 500,000 articles on wikipedia which are more poorly sourced (eg), about items of less significance (eg), and less discussed (eg). Re the awards site, CSME seem to have taken down their info from the 2003 competition...I will scan in my award certificate if you want proof of our placing. I would suggest that as extensive as Google is, not everyting that's worth including on Wikipedia is included there. Wikipedia's strength is it's breadth of coverage. No other encyclopedia would have an entry on the Iron Ring Clock, but then that could be said about the majority of Wikipedia articles. If the existance of this article is causing you genuine pain somehow, then I apologize and say vote delete...if you find it's about an interesting piece of student art, well known on the campus of a major Canadian university, and representing an important piece of Canadian engineering tradition, then please vote keep. Burtonpe 14:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nicely written and illustrated article, but appears to be written by one of the subjects, and the "iron ring" incorrectly is claimed to be the "worlds largest" when there are larger ones on every large turbine or old locomotive wheel, and when it it actually made of stainless steel. These quibbles aside, a couple of mentions in the campus paper are not enough evidence of notability. Most Google entries are mirrors of the Wikipedia article. Edison 15:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edison, please check the article's talk page for a longer response to your comment there re the use of the term iron ring; I would have responded here but I saw your post to the talk page first. The term 'iron ring' as used in the article does not refer to just a ring made of iron, which is (I believe) a justified use. Please see the article on iron ring for more. If you have a citation for a larger iron ring, then please put it forward. I have already mentioned my opinion on google hits in my response above. Burtonpe 15:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one small addition to the above - I am not one of the subjects of the page, the page is on the clock. My name is mentioned once, at the bottom, as one of the creators. Burtonpe 16:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am an engineering student at McMaster University and The Iron Ring Clock has become part of our legacy. My friends who come to visit from other universities were impressed when they saw it. I use this wikipedia site as a means of promoting my school and yes, the biggest iron ring I have ever seen or heard of. I have even had a professor use the clock as an example in a lesson on gear trains. Change79 16:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — Change79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep As a co-creator of this piece of student art I (obviously) agree with the thought that Wikipedia is a perfect froum for an article. The posting was not intended to be self promoting (as noted above) but merely an informative article on the history of this piece. If it was intended to be self-serving the original author would have likely included his name more than once (at the bottom, as one of the creators). The project has been cited in the City of Hamilton's news paper two, if not three times (copies of these articles can be posted if proof be needed) as well as student and University news. As for the debate regarding the largest iron ring - we've been through this. Read it again (Iron Ring Clock) in the context of the fact that the ring is largest representation of the Iron Ring worn by Canadian Engineers. I would love to see a larger one, but frankly with what we had to go through to have this one made I doubt it's likely one exists. The Iron Ring Clock is a one of a kind piece of art. It is unique to McMaster University and, frankly, deserves to have this one, short article available in the public domain.dunkshows — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunkshows (talk • contribs) 2006-11-30 17:11:35 — dunkshows (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • We don't want copies. We want the originals. Please cite them. Uncle G 17:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Atlant 17:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The AfD process is not a vote or popularity contest. Is there a reason you think this article should be kept? That its notability is established? Edison 17:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Edison 17:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The work as a whole isn't notable by Wikipedia's standards, and few of the particulars are verifiable by Wikipedia's standards. -- Alan McBeth 17:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it appears to be of local notability. References are provided. At the very least, merge into McMaster University. -- Whpq 17:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Having previously been heavily involved with the McMaster Engineering Society I can testify to the clock's importance in introducing new engineering students to the McMaster culture and showing them what they can accomplish. The clock is seen by thousands of people everyday and is often remarked upon, by students and faculty both, as being an interesting and unusual piece that promotes McMaster. This project has affected thousands of people and deserves to have an article. Garnishthemonkey 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — Garnishthemonkey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Merge and redirect to McMaster University. Local notability, but no real evidence of broader notability among engineers, clockfans, or the general public. I would change to "keep" if some reliable sources showed non-trivial third-party coverage. Barno 18:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment added in citation, a link to a summary of this article [1] in The Hamilton Spectator, a paper with a circulation of 260,000 copies. In my opinion this greatly enhances notability.Burtonpe 19:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may but remember WP:N says "multiple, non-trivial published works" (emphasis mine). Copysan 04:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- a bit weird, but a notable and well written aritcle. Needs more sources and a checkup on facts. Sharkface217 20:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep- It did win a second place in an annual design award, which may well make it notable, as far as I'm aware there isn't a guideline for the notability of devices. And as to the COI issues: there are mentions of design drawbacks of the clock which seems to rule out strict vanity. Sections might need cleanup "Future plans" is a boarderline WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball violation and the detail given to the construction methods and design team may be excessive. I'd say 'weak' keep based on the boarderline notability and writing issues. Oh, and to the author, just because wikipedia has worse isn't a reason to save this one. Your arguments weren't bad, but they also didn't assert a grounding in wiki policy to keep the articles. The number of people that see the clock and mention it unfortunately isn't verifiable, and isn't really a source of wikipedia-defintion notability (a lot of peopel see the donut stand on the corner of North and Oakland too, and it's very distinctive architecturally, but it hardly deserves a wikipedia entry (donutcruft?)). If the design award can be proven, then that's the strongest argument in my book, as would non-trivial articles or mentions in notable press, heck, even the thesis paper the designers wrote, if published in a reputable journal would go a long way.129.89.68.218 22:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - seems a bit self-serving to me right now. When and if it is written up in some scholarly journals, then it can return. Alternatively, if kept, consider merging it in to McMaster University until it is noteworty enough to go solo. I looked for scholarly citations (not newspapers) in a graduate school library, and have yet to find the reliable resources I like to see. Keesiewonder 13:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If Wikipedia were restricted to only articles which were written up in multiple 'scholarly' sources found in graduate school libraries, then many hundreds of thousands of articles would be up for deletion along with this one. Sourcing requirements should be pragmatic; if you believe that I don't have any significant over the Hamilton Spectator, the Toronto Metro, the Canadian Society of Mechanical Engineers, and various departments of McMaster University, then I propose that these are more than acceptable as sources.Burtonpe 04:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sharkface217. Article can be improved and sourced and brought up to wiki standards. 203.218.207.217 01:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC) — 203.218.207.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • The article cites one independent source and is unlikely to gain further attention. Remember WP:N says "multiple, non-trivial published works" (emphasis mine). Copysan 04:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is your own opinion so don't imply it as a general consensus. And stop posting wikipedia policy. It doesn't bloody help! 203.218.207.217 04:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please keep in mind WP:CIVIL, and quoting wikipedia policy is relevant since it is the applciation of the policy that determines whether the article is kept or deleted. But as for the assertion of only one independent source, there is the Hamilton Specator article which is from a major market newspaper, and engineering society documentation which is no longer online. -- Whpq 15:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please see Bull — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.179.151 (talk • contribs)
          • Hi Whpq, I've been meaning to bring our certificate for the 2nd place in to work and scan it, but I've been in Las Vegas for the weekend and my brain is a bit addled. I will have something to show tommorrow, if the clock article still exists. Burtonpe 16:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • clarification request: Which user do you mean copysan? I think it isn't unreasonable to expect that from the user if he's writing about something he was involved in. He did make full disclosure of his potential conflict of interest and has been generally acting in good faith. If he can steer clear of POV issues I don't see why that ought to be an automatic impeachment of his credibility. That said I agree with Kessiewonder that the existing writeup is a bit self-serving and might be toned down. Wintermut3 07:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean? I'm not talking about conflict of interest issues. I'm talking notability and verifiability. Copysan 04:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - but could be rewritten a bit though LHOON 11:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per LHOON. 218.102.81.251 12:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — 218.102.81.251 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Weak Delete I find the subject matter interesting and the article well written, but have to agree with Edison - additional sources beyond the college newspapers would help to bolster notability. Endless blue 06:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As said above, the article then should be given a chance to be improved rather than deleted. What is said is contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.132.175 (talk • contribs) 00:04, December 3, 2006
• Delete not a notable invention, looks like a one off project. Suttungr 15:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have no idea what you're talking about. 203.218.213.180 23:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Two comments regarding Suttungr's post above; firstly, the article does not claim that the clock is any kind of invention. Secondly, I have never heard of 'one off projects' being excluded from Wikipedia. Applying this criteria would lead to the deletion of this article, this article, this article, etc. Burtonpe 04:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Searched through my files and found another source independant of the University, an article from the Toronto Metro newspaper (http://www.metronews.ca/). No electronic copy available because the Metro doesn't supply this stuff; took the info from a hard copy I saved. Burtonpe 05:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you also provide the date published, author, and headline of the article so that editors with access to a periodical database can check? The databases I have access to dont have the Toronto Metro, but others may. Copysan 06:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The line I added into the reference section of the article reads 'Torstar News Service. "Time piece becomes legacy", Toronto Metro, September 8, 2003' There was no author listed on the article, just 'Torstar News Service'. Burtonpe 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Endless blue, with whose sentiments I am in complete agreement. WMMartin 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Vandalism - I've reverted vadalism by User:219.77.82.186 who changed WMMartin's "Delete" into "Keep" -- Whpq 01:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. WMMartin 17:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources I've taken a pic of the award certificate for the Canadian Society of Mechanical Engineers competition in which the clock came 2nd, you can see it here or in the article; still hoping to scan it tomorrow at work. I know that this is not exactly an iron-clad source, but hopefully you will believe me when I say I did not spend my weekend creating this certificate. I think that this certificate, plus the articles in The Hamilton Spectator and the Toronto Metro, in addition to all the McMaster literature (calling these sources 'college newspapers' or 'student newspapers' as above is incorrect), are sufficient to show notability. The MacEngineer especially is an Alumni publication, with little to no student input and a predominantly off-campus circulation. I believe they certainly address the (legitimate) comments above regarding the broken link to the CSME award and the need for multiple, independant sources. Burtonpe 04:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scanned and uploaded the CSME certificate, accessible through the link above. Burtonpe 14:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable. 147.8.16.61 11:43, 6 December 2006 (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.