Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Staccato-Harmonic Duo-Tone
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 Delete Nakon 05:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Staccato-Harmonic Duo-Tone
Non-notable original research. The only hit I get on google is this article. I've played guitar but I'm far from an expert but this technique sounds like nothing new to me it pretty much sounds like a hammer on combined with a harmonic then just a simple pull off. Since there are no other sources then this article it's impossible for me to tell what is being described here. Ridernyc (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Ridernyc (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep - I don't necessarily agree with OR claim, unless the article was posted by Nguyen himself, but I have to agree that I can't tell what's special about the effect. It seems like it's just a form of playing the harmonic that sounds the fundamental briefly as well. Ten years ago that was just known as playing a sloppy harmonic. However, the fact that he presented a lecture at the Charles Darwin University guitar festival says that academic professionals within the field thought it was unique enough to give him a spot. Torc2 (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Original research doesn't mean "posted here by the inventor". It means that the idea hasn't escaped its creator, been peer reviewed, been documented in independent sources with reputations for fact checking and accuracy, been acknowledged by the rest of the world, and entered the general corpus of human knowledge. Unverifiability is also a problem. How do you propose that readers check this article for correctness? They cannot travel back in time and attend the lecture. Where was this idea written down and published by reliable and independent sources, that readers can use to check anything that this article says about it? Readers must be able to check all Wikipedia content against sources. Uncle G (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- If the poster isn't the one doing the research, or if they're just copying something they read about and didn't source it, then (copyright aside) it's just a matter of verifiability and sources. The only question for the AfD is does this actually exist, is it notable, and do we have sources to verify our answers to the first two? Yes we do. Complaints about content beyond that are outside the realm of the AfD and should be handled with the appropriate tags within the article. Yes, the article needs better sources, and sections of it might be original research; I never denied that. But I think what source is there is at least enough to pass the AfD. As to being able to verify it, that's a problem with any source that isn't available online. Do we delete everything whose sources are still only available on ink and paper or videotape? Torc2 (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's a loaded question, based upon the assumption that sources that are "only available on ink and paper" exist, and that the creator of the article is using something that they read. There's no evidence that that is true. You have not cited any sources, neither does the article. You have no basis for the "Yes we do." answer that you gave to your own question, and you certainly haven't proven that to anyone else. I repeat the questions that I asked above, that you have avoided answering: How do you propose that readers check this article for correctness? Where was this idea written down and published by reliable and independent sources, that readers can use to check anything that this article says about it? Avoiding the questions again will only lend weight to the conclusion that you don't actually have any, and that the correct answer to your question is in fact "No, we don't.". Uncle G (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- The article references a university-hosted festival/conference where the material was presented. Generally, university-hosted music events like this are not places where every random person gets to present anything they feel like presenting. Academic conferences like the ICMC are juried, and the presenter applies or is asked to give a lecture about recent work; conference programs and a book of Proceedings are produced. So what was "written down and published by reliable and independent sources" was the program to the festival, and based on that reference alone, we know that a lecture on this topic was approved and given at a formal academic event. That gives reason enough to believe it was notable (under Wikipedia:MUSIC#Others if nothing else). Now, if you want to debate the factuality of something in the article content, that's a matter for the article page, not for an AfD. Torc2 (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- You know nothing about this music festival and nothing about what he did there, you are basing everything you are saying purely on assumptions. If it can't be show with reliable independent sources, it can not be on wikipedia. Show me actual sources that show prove any of these assumptions you are making and the article stays. Ridernyc (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's an academic event, hosted by a university. Certain assumptions are reasonable. How many academic music conferences have you been to? Torc2 (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- You know nothing about this music festival and nothing about what he did there, you are basing everything you are saying purely on assumptions. If it can't be show with reliable independent sources, it can not be on wikipedia. Show me actual sources that show prove any of these assumptions you are making and the article stays. Ridernyc (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- The article references a university-hosted festival/conference where the material was presented. Generally, university-hosted music events like this are not places where every random person gets to present anything they feel like presenting. Academic conferences like the ICMC are juried, and the presenter applies or is asked to give a lecture about recent work; conference programs and a book of Proceedings are produced. So what was "written down and published by reliable and independent sources" was the program to the festival, and based on that reference alone, we know that a lecture on this topic was approved and given at a formal academic event. That gives reason enough to believe it was notable (under Wikipedia:MUSIC#Others if nothing else). Now, if you want to debate the factuality of something in the article content, that's a matter for the article page, not for an AfD. Torc2 (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's a loaded question, based upon the assumption that sources that are "only available on ink and paper" exist, and that the creator of the article is using something that they read. There's no evidence that that is true. You have not cited any sources, neither does the article. You have no basis for the "Yes we do." answer that you gave to your own question, and you certainly haven't proven that to anyone else. I repeat the questions that I asked above, that you have avoided answering: How do you propose that readers check this article for correctness? Where was this idea written down and published by reliable and independent sources, that readers can use to check anything that this article says about it? Avoiding the questions again will only lend weight to the conclusion that you don't actually have any, and that the correct answer to your question is in fact "No, we don't.". Uncle G (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- If the poster isn't the one doing the research, or if they're just copying something they read about and didn't source it, then (copyright aside) it's just a matter of verifiability and sources. The only question for the AfD is does this actually exist, is it notable, and do we have sources to verify our answers to the first two? Yes we do. Complaints about content beyond that are outside the realm of the AfD and should be handled with the appropriate tags within the article. Yes, the article needs better sources, and sections of it might be original research; I never denied that. But I think what source is there is at least enough to pass the AfD. As to being able to verify it, that's a problem with any source that isn't available online. Do we delete everything whose sources are still only available on ink and paper or videotape? Torc2 (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Original research doesn't mean "posted here by the inventor". It means that the idea hasn't escaped its creator, been peer reviewed, been documented in independent sources with reputations for fact checking and accuracy, been acknowledged by the rest of the world, and entered the general corpus of human knowledge. Unverifiability is also a problem. How do you propose that readers check this article for correctness? They cannot travel back in time and attend the lecture. Where was this idea written down and published by reliable and independent sources, that readers can use to check anything that this article says about it? Readers must be able to check all Wikipedia content against sources. Uncle G (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- This comment was left on the talk page of this AFD
- This staccato-harmonic duotone is a very important discovery in guitar playing technique in the 21st century. Le-Tuyen Nguyen, an Australian educator and composer gave a lecture-recital on this new technique at the Darwin International Guitar Festival in July 2007. Leading classical musicians and composers around the world were amazed. Further research to look at sound waves and harmonics-series of staccato-harmonic duo-tone using computer sound analysis is being done.
My comment to it that's all great show me proof. Ridernyc (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
It is me Hduc (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC) who put this article on wikipedia. I saw the author playing and demonstrate the technique at a gathering. I am not an acedemic but an atmospheric scientist and i think the public should know what the author have invented. I think your proposal to delete this article is weak.
- has anything been published on this technique are you just writing the article from what you yourself saw demonstrated? Ridernyc (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Nothing has been published yet. I talked to the author afterward and i told him i am curious and if possible want to investigate the physical process of the sound production when he creates two tones. It is strange that this can happen and the only way to understand is by analysing the recorded signals (using filtering and Fourier analysis). He agreed to this but we haven't met again yet. In the meantime, he gave me the notes and a copy of his talk at the conference. This is the basis of the materials i put on te web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hduc (talk • contribs) 13:28, 19 January 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.
