Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:36, 13 August 2008

13 August 2008

Sonic shower

Sonic shower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

AfDs may not be a vote, but in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sonic shower (2nd nomination) when seven editors in good standing argue to keep and another argues to merge, we do not have a consensus to delete, especially when the deletes are unsubstantiated WP:JNN in nature. Seven editors in good standing argued to keep and one argued to merge. The closer claims that the only sources are wikis, but a Google book search (see ) shows that this claim is simply not true. Thus saying that verifiability outweighs consensus is inaccurate, because the article can be verified by multiple published books and because it is exists in multiple published books, it is thus notable. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, several of the deletes point out that the sources in the article were two other wikis, which we all know are not reliable, and thus the article was unverifiable. Sandstein noted this in his close, which seems reasonable. 'Keep deleted'. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The hits included verifiable information in published books, which is why the close was unreasonable and the article should be undeleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This search is better. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A note to the folks who have turned up all of the sources here: next time, do it during the AFD, not in DRV. Neutral, as the sources presented seem rather in-world or minimal in reference. Carry on. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. The keep arguments were weak and did not successfully refute any delete arguments. Without some reliable, non-fiction sources to establish notability of the subject, there's no good reason to overturn. If exact examples can be provided, I will reconsider; I did not see any in the Google books search. lifebaka++ 17:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • By contrast, the delete arguments were weak and the keep arguments effectively refuted them by providing reliable sources to establish notability, which is why the discussion must be overturned. Such sources as this, an interview, provides out of universe commentary. This ones also seems to be a real world usage of the term. Thus, at worst we can make some kind of disambugation page. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hem. I'm not convinced that the Star Trek item has merit for its own article from the first. Is the concept used in any other shows?

The second link is unrelated to the previous article, and by itself isn't enough to merit an article. But I'll bet that idea has been discussed elsewhere, likely under a different name. I'm not satisfied enough with either to switch my opinion on this one, but I'd like to note that Sandstein's close doesn't preclude an article about a different topic. I'm heading through the books hits farther to check if there are more. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is used in other media. Here are three books. So I'm currently unsure what to make of it, and am switching to neutral. lifebaka++ 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping an open-mind and engaging in productive discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I hadn't finished looking yet. These three books are non fiction and contain "sonic shower" in what seems like a related context. Relevant quotes are, in order,

1. "... rather than the traditional view screen on the bridge, and details of the Captain's quarters which includes a sonic shower and a 360-degree mirror). ..."
2. "... take a sonic-shower, undergo a light therapy session, see a play, be transformed into an opera diva, ride a pink mini-cycle, slide into a latex skin, ..."
3. "One can wash in a "sonic" shower, c be scrubbed in a conventional tub by the ver faithful family robot or be dressed by a ..." (typos?)

Can't tell if any of them are useful, but it's what I found. I'll see if I can get my hands on any of them as quick as I can. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 18:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(conflicted) That is certainly helpful. :) The Google Books link above led me to another fiction ref, too. ("...the sonic shower didn't use water. It used pulses of inaudible sound and a stream of heated air to gently remove dead skin cells, dirt, and excess oil.") This clearly verifies some materials I see in the deleted version. The WP:V argument is glaringly false. --PeaceNT (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn unreasonable close, not taking into account the information presented. DGG (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, the information presented did not refute the valid arguments to delete. A search on Google Books turning up a lot of hits may indicate that reliable sources are likely, but does not prove their existence. Despite the insistence of editors in the debate that sources were out there, none were either presented for argument or added to the article. The likely existence of sources does not satisfy inclusion criteria and these arguments were rightly afforded less weight. Shereth 18:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The Google books results refuted the invalid "reasons" to delete an article that was improperly nominated in the first place as an earlier AfD closed as a decisive keep by demonstrating that reliable sources exist. Sources were presented in the discussion and above. The claims that sources don't exist is dishonest and inaccurate based on this reality. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • improperly nominated in the first place as an earlier AfD closed as a decisive keep by demonstrating that reliable sources exist -- that AfD was almost a year ago, and those claims of sources' existence never extended to actual inclusion in the article. Given that window to improve the article, which editors failed to do, Judgesurreal was right to nominate it. EEMIV 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
      • The right thing to do would have been Misplaced Pages:SOFIXIT as if I can find these sources, so too could others. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn No consensus for "delete" in that discussion. The admin's comment regarding WP:V looks like a delete vote rationale, not a closing statement. There is no verifiability issue. Most fictional topics can easily be verified by the fiction works themselves, and some sources were cited above. Saying that this is unverifiable is just wrong. --PeaceNT (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Additional source: The first result in Daniel H. Wilson, "10 Genius Inventions We're Still Waiting For: PM's resident roboticist imagines new tech that will transform our lives. Now all we need is someone to invent it," Popular Mechanics (May 2008) is none other than "Sonic Showers". --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I just read the first AfD. In case anyone hasn't noticed, there are some interesting real-world related refs cited in that discussion. Could be helpful as additional source, too. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn – Here are some other non-trivial mentions in real-world sources:
  • Graham, Jefferson. "'Voyager': Change in the stars", USA Today, 1998-07-24, p. E9; quote: "Outer-space cleansing: It's been much discussed, but this season, viewers will get their first peek at Voyager members taking a sonic shower. 'It's real loud,' Braga says. "A bath in sound waves.'"
  • Kirsch, Jonathan. "From Flawed World to a Flawed Utopia", Los Angeles Times, 1988-06-15, p. 8; quote: "Walden Three itself is an off-the-shelf technological conceit that offers no real surprises at all—a domed Shangri-La, providing its placid residents with the pleasures and conveniences of sonic showers, moving sidewalks, three-dimensional video walls."
  • Spelling, Ian. "The plot hit close to home for Kirk on Planet Deneva", Denver Post, 1994-09-09;quote: "Those aboard the Enterprise used a personal-hygiene device called a sonic shower to keep themselves clean." Paul Erik 19:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn per the references provided in this DRV discussion, which indicate sufficient coverage of this device in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. John254 19:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy - the question is not whether now, after the fact, digging around turns up a sentence here and a sentence there that mentions "sonic shower". The question is, was the AFD decided correctly based on the article as it stood at the time the AFD was closed? As the closing admin noted, consensus does not and cannot override core policy, and WP:V is a core policy. Clearly, if the article was sourced only by two other wikis, it failed WP:V and the closing admin correctly deleted it. Rather than dashing off yet again to try for yet another AFD round two, is there some reason why Le Grand could not have requested the article be userfied, written it with appropriate sourcing and then moved it to articlespace? This constant rush to DRV every time Le Grand disagrees with a deletion is a waste of the community's time and resources and borders on an abuse of process. If the AFD is overturned, there is no guarantee that anyone so earnestly asserting that there are reliable sources for the topic will spend another second working on it. How many times at AFD have we seen articles kept on the "wait and see" premise, only to have them languish untouched for months or years as this one did and return to AFD? Keep the article deleted and let's see if Le Grand or one of the other editors who wants it restored will volunteer to userfy it and write it to actual Misplaced Pages standards. Otto4711 (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • An actual waste of the communities time is your constant renomination of articles for deletion that were unambiguously kept. Unless you concede that trying repeatedly to get something deleted that is kept sometimes multiple times is somehow not "AFD round two" then you are in no position to say anything about anyone who takes obviously bad closures to DRV. Just because the AfD ended is no reason why serious encylopedists would just stop with any effort to find sources or to augment our coverage of notable and verifiable topics. AfDs that close as delete are not the end all of us ever covering that particular topic. If new reliable sources turn up, we undelete and add them to the article. The closing admin ignored the sources presented in the discussion and apparently did not do a simple search as those who commented here did that would have turned up the sources, i.e. to verify that the inaccurate claims for deletion were in fact false as eidtors have shown above. The close was wrong, sources exist, and therefore I did not ask for userfication as there is no legitimate reason why editors cannot work on this notable and encyclopedic topic in mainspace. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse AfD isn't a vote. It is odd that Sandstein would decide to delete and then make it known that he deleted it on WP:V reasons, but it could have just as easily been deleted under WP:N. If we need to overturn this deletion and then re-delete it on the grounds that the AfD should have resulted in a "deleted without explanation" or "deleted because the subject isn't notable", that's fine. As for the WP:V, the decision was correct with regard to the article both at the START and END of the AfD. Given how much frothing there was in the deletion discussion over how obviously notable the subject was, how did 5 days elapse with only memory alpha links on this article? As for the 'sources' suggested in the AfD, almost all of those referred to sonic cleaning devices (referred to by a number of different names: "sonic sink, ultrasonic sink, ultrasonic shower") which did not resemble the article subject in form nor function. An ultrasonic sink in the real world bears no resemblance to the sonic showers of science fiction. Likewise, independent sources weren't found that referred to the subject of the article as it related to science fiction. And again, google searches don't count. Protonk (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Stan burdman

Stan burdman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I noticed that Stan Burdman, a famous radio dj, game reviewer, and comic, did not have a wiki page. I just thought this was strange so I made him one, using all the information on him I know and giving proper links to his radio show and all the other things he has done. The page was deleted, apparantly because you can't make wikipedia pages on people. This is really strange because I see a lot of wikipedia pages on various public figures and entertainers like Stan. I would like the Stan Burdman wiki page I made to be undeleted if that is at all possible. Thank you for your time Braddj1977 (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per WP:SNOW only. The speedy deletion was technically improper because the article asserted notability ("He has written for, and hosted, several online podcasts and radio shows. Most notable of these is his entertainment talk show ..."). However, a Google search indicates that this person is not close to having the sort of coverage that would make him pass WP:N; the article would have almost certainly been deleted at AfD.  Sandstein  07:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'm not big on actually endorsing misused speedies, but Sandstein's got a great point. Unless someone can find some sources to prove notability, it's likely a waste of time to restore the article. Likely this'll overturn, given that there're a lot of people who are trying to send a message by !voting overturn on this sort of DRV (I count myself as one of them). Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 14:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse per Sandstein (76 unique Googles of which some are mis-spellings of Stan Boardman) and citing Geogre's Law. WP:SPA seems unusually well versed in Wiki ways... Guy (Help!) 15:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and list The reasons speedy articles that are not valid speedys should always be overturned her, even if they appear hopeless are that 1/someone might find something given a chance, and Deletion Review is not AfD--to argue over whether there are sufficient ghits here is to argue in the wrong place. and 2/ otherwise admins making improper deletions will continue on their ways, and delete things that might be supportable as is, but where the often--intimidated newbies will not bring here. If a valid defense for a speedy here is that it would not standard afd, then the speedy criterion becomes anything that will not stand at afd, but no single admin is qualified to tell tha, and consequently proposal to that effect have always been rejected. Geogre claimed only a strong correlation, not a perfect one, between miscapitalization & unsuitability (& he's right, there certainly is a correlation). If someone seriously propose that miscapitalization be a speedy criterion, let them try to propose it. DGG (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC).
• Overturn and list Process is important. The article asserted the notability of the subject, so a speedy was improper. This is not the first out-of-process deletion by User:Orangemike, and DRV needs to consistently overturn the actions of any administrator who fails to abide by the wishes of the community. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm rather uncomfortable with what I seem to be hearing here, which is the assertion that the mere use of the word "notable" in an article about, say, some kid with a YouTube vid and a podcast makes it invulnerable to speedies! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)