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 delete. COI and promotional intent are not themselves reasons to delete, but they make us look particularly for the independent comment which is required as evidence of notability, and the consensus to delete is because that is not found. JohnCD (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sound Manifesto[edit]

The Sound Manifesto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

No assertion of notability, no signficant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, evident WP:Conflict of interest by creator. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Because some people have posted to the Discussion page for the article itself, I've copied these comments over to this Discussion page - so they're not overlooked. Egrabczewski (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete; there are no reliable sources sufficient to indicate notability. Ironholds (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not accurate. The Manifesto is derived from three independent sources, all of which are referenced, as well as the page from The Sound Manifesto web site. The Manifesto itself has been made public via an OTRS agreement. Egrabczewski (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not accurate. The Manifesto is derived from three sources, all of which are referenced Egrabczewski (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliable Sources for the article, not the manifesto. Ironholds (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - creators of page are creators of 'manifesto' (ie conflict of interest). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.241.192 (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of an article by an editor with a conflict of interest is not a criteria for deletion, it all depends on whether the article is written from a NPOV or not, and even then, what's called for is a re-write, not necessarily for deletion. Whether to delete or not should be determined on the basis of the subject, not on who created the article. That being said...Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No sources, seems to be promotional. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not accurate. The Manifesto is derived from three sources, all of which are referenced. The article is factual and informative and there is no promotional material. Egrabczewski (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment to Egrabczewski None of those sources are reliable and pass WP:GNG. I have strong doubts about several bits, particularly the claim "oh, film X has a director of sound, this must have contributed to it". Ironholds (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Open Letter by John Coffey an unreliable source? Why? Is David Yewdall's book an unreliable source? Why? Is the filmsound.org and Randy Thom's opinion unreliable? Why? The article states that this movement has contributed towards the popularity of the roles of Director of Sound and Director of Audiography. Find me a Director of Audiography or Director of Sound credit in the Western world for a film or video before the article on Director of Audiography appeared in Wikipedia in May 2006. Since Wikipedia has hosted articles on the Director of Audiography for several years, it has contributed to this movement by informing the filmmaking community of what happens elsewhere in the World. Egrabczewski (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Going through in order:

    sources 1,2,3 and 4 are associated with the writers, in some cases by them; as such, they fail WP:GNG.

    I cannot see source 5, and therefore cannot verify the information; given, however, that it is a 424 page book which contributes at most a single page, it's hardly "significant coverage".

    Have you read the FilmSound.org article? It makes no mention of the Manifesto whatsoever. If the sound manifesto is derived from his ideas, all well and good, but that doesn't make it notable and it doesn't make his post a reliable source.

    In regards to "The article states that.." see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ironholds (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • So Ironholds, you appear to be saying is that using books and articles as sources of reference for Wikipedia articles is not acceptable. Or have I missed something? I'm not using any other sources than those typical of other articles I've written elsewhere in Wikipedia. BTW RE: you comment on my talk page regarding posting irrelevant material on this page. What exactly is irrelevant to this discussion? Egrabczewski (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, read WP:RS and WP:GNG. I am saying that the quote unquote "articles" are respectively written by the authors of the manifesto and therefore not reliable sources and in some cases completely unrelated to the Manifesto (in that the source was an inspiration for the Manifesto, and makes no reference to it whatsoever). Articles should use reliable sources which are independent of the subject and discuss it in significant detail. Speaking as somebody who has written over 500 articles, I'd eat my hat if I'd used the sort of sources you have. You've got unreliable sources, unreliable sources by the Manifesto authors and reliable sources that don't discuss the Manifesto at all. The "irrelevant comments" is about the mass of testimonials you placed on the AfD talkpage. Ironholds (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article states that the Manifesto is derived from several sources (more on this in the Discussion page to The Sound Manfiesto article). These sources have contributed to the concepts of the Manifesto. These are the references I have quoted and I think we agree that they are legitimate. The article can either refer to The Sound Manifesto web site or it can state the principles of the Manifesto inline. Since I was asked to remove reference to The Sound Manifesto web site on the grounds of neturality then if you're looking for references to Manifesto then, at present, you'll only see it on The Sound Manifesto web site. Regarding your comments about "irrelevant comments", I have to disagree. The article header invites people to comment on the project Discussion page. In practice most people have left comments on the article Discussion page instead. It is hardly irrelevant to copy those comments into the right place is it? Perhaps the comment is misleading but I feel these comments need to be viewed by all who make a decision on whether or not to delete this article as they are HIGHLY relevant in determining the notability of this subject and hence article and they do indeed support the case for its notability. The only issue is whether it is notable according to the definition used by Wikipedia. Egrabczewski (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You seem to be misunderstanding what notability is. Notability is sources discussing the article subject, not the sources of the article subject. It is also not the number of IP addresses and new accounts who think the idea of the article is quite nice. Ironholds (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay Ironholds, accepting for the moment that Wikipedia has a definition of "notable" which means that articles should refer to independent sources as a form of reference. Tell me if I've misunderstood but from what you say then that means that I need a reference to, say, a publication or Web site that holds an article on the Manifesto that was not written by myself. Notability cannot be established on Wikipedia by a consensus of persons. Is that your interpretation of the rules of Wikipedia? Egrabczewski (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Effectively, yes. Consensus establishes notability, but consensus is based on evidence. Ironholds (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm a little concerned at the way the talk record is being edited here. Once an editor has replied to a comment, going back and changing the comment to which that editor has replied can be misleading. I'm WP:Assuming good faith about all editors' intentions here, but contributors to this discussion should please read WP:REDACT: a talk page is a record of a discussion, and when it's changed back and forth then other editors can't follow who's said what and when. If it's essential to change what you wrote, then mark out your deletions and insertions (as described in WP:REDACT) when changing what you wrote rather than re-writing. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2010 (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.