Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sound of fingernails scraping chalkboard

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. Wizardman 19:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sound of fingernails scraping chalkboard

Sound of fingernails scraping chalkboard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I really fail to see why this sound is notable. Yes, it may have received the focus of a few studies. But that doesn't mean that it should have its own article. Perhaps (and only perhaps) there could be an article about annoying sounds - it could perhaps even just be merged into the psychoacoustics article which already links to this article in its "see also" section. Also, the page only has three actual articles pointing to it, none of which really have anything important to do with this. I think it unlikely to be important to link here from other Wikipedia article, and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that anybody is ever going to search for this article without already knowing that it exists. In short, delete, or possibly merge into the psychoacoustics article. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 21:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Benefit of doubt, keep. (If only for its novelty value.) —Nightstallion 21:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Regarding searching, this article is the 8th result on Google for "fingernails scraping chalkboard" and the 3rd result for "fingernails scraping blackboard". We must remember that many people use the search interface, be it Google, Yahoo!, MSN, or AOL to find everything, and Wikipedia ranks highly on many, many searches nowadays. We don't need to imagine people searching for the full name of an article (if anyone has any ideas for improving it, though, speak up). --Dhartung | Talk 04:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Something is wrong with this AfD - there is no tag on the article page. Aleta Sing 23:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep the article passess WP:N and WP:V and it has been the subject of many studies in the field of psychology Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 23:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Somewhat notable, and definantly something that regular people are going to look up on the internet. It's well referenced, and mostly MoS compliant, so it's worth keeping. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (with the disclosure that I am the primary author, creater, and DYKer of this page). Had I felt that this did not meet notability criteria, I would not have made it. I feel that the number of citations from various sources, including newspapers (Vancouver Sun), magazines (Popular Mechanics) and a scientific journal (Perception & Psychophysics, published by the Psychonomic Society), all establish the notability of this topic. Just because something is unusual (which this definitely is) does not mean that it is non-encyclopedic. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It looks well sourced and encyclopedic; this is a pretty well-known phenomenon. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep; subject is a notable phenomenon in psychoacoustics and general psychology. Studies and coverage back it, thus I don't see any reason to delete. Celarnor Talk to me 02:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, even though I can see where the nom is coming from. I wouldn't have started an article on this topic, but the sound/pheomenon is indeed somewhat notable, the article is pretty good and has some good references. That's all that an article IMO needs for a keep (I'm not opposed to merging or renaming if the topic can be presented in a better way). – sgeureka t•c 12:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep/merge Articles on related topics include Consonance and dissonance and Phonaesthetics. They are focussed upon music and speech so there's room for another article upon other types of nasty noise. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, somewhat notable and well-sourced. I mean... screeeech. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Slashdotted Didn't I see this on Slashdot a couple days ago? Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Sgeureka, though a title with fewer words might've prevented this whole discussion - though I've no idea what that title would be.... Ezratrumpet (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-written article with references to multiple reliable sources, which appeared on DYK. Its linkage to other articles is not a question for AfD. It's one of the advantages of Wikipedia, in my opinion, that it can cover this kind of topic. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets notability and verifiability via references. spryde | talk 18:21, 21 April 2008 (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.