Talk:The Amazing Pudding

Relevance and notability
Why is there a 'when' in "Mabbett wrote the official programme notes, when Pink Floyd were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame."

What is the relevance of the last part of the sentence. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC) Well, I believe that I took Google's advice and used https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22The+Amazing+Pudding%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=the+amazing+pudding+fanzine&rls=en and got 37,000-38,000 hits, The Amazing Pudding without quotes was not reliable (29 million or something, but many irrelevant hits) The Amazing Pudding Pink Floyd (no quotes) got 128,000, so I took a logical search suggested by Google to narrow it. I suppose it's all in how one crunches it; I didn't search for "Mabbett" and see no reason to - the notability is the publication, not the authors or coauthors, though for that reason, I see no harm in minor details that provide evidence of their qualifications to enhance the credibility of this publication. As for your search, 5.320 is not really that bad, either. Searching just "The Amazing Pudding" in quotes gave me about 11, 400 hits. I am not sure what your "grammar" concern is, precisely. All I am saying is that one tag is plenty and the other two are overkill and not really accurate. Article appears adequately notable, certainly more so than some I've tried and failed to dump. I have no real comment about the minutae of the article content, though clearly it would benefit from some expansion. Like I said earlier, it feels like there is a personal agenda going on here. Montanabw (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Similarly, why is it relevant for this article that Mabbett and MacDonald wrote books on PF? Why is "Trueman also published the Syd Barrett magazine, Opel, before founding Delerium Records" relevant for this article? If Trueman is notable, this should be in a biographical article about him, not here. Further, why is it "tag bombing" that needs explaining to tag an article for notability if all that said article has are 10 references to publications by the editors of the magazine themselves and one in-passing mention on a fan-club website of uncertain reliability? --Randykitty (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relevance is if these individuals have notability as writers on PF due to other published works. Doing a search on the publication gave me about 38,000 google hits, so it appears notable.  As I see it, the only relevant tag is the COI one, which is appropriate, the other two are just snarky personal attacks on the editor.   Montanabw (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What search terms did you use? "The Amazing Pudding" "Mabbett" only returns 5,320 results for me.  However you have not addressed my question, which is a matter of grammar foremost - the 'when' introduces a temporal relationship, however the relevance of that temporal relationship isnt clear. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @: Would you kindly assume good faith and retract your remarks about "snarky personal attacks" and "a personal agenda"? Mabbett is an editor in good standing and I certainly have no personal agenda with respect to him (or anyone else for that matter), nor do I have any intention to be "snarky" towards anybody. I also know John Vandenberg long enough to know that this will be the same for him. In contrast, removing valid maintenance tags without addressing the problem is considered disruptive editing (which is why we have templates like uw-tdel1). You have removed the templates, so the onus is on you to address the signaled problems. I assume that you identified multiple reliable sources establishing notability among the thousands of Ghits that you found, so it would be great if those could be added to the article. As for relevance: the article is about the magazine. Biographical information about people that were involved with it doesn't belong here but in bios on these people (if they are notable). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I tagged it because it has a lot of snippets of trivia that dont appear to be related to the topic at hand. If they are all removed, the article would likely be deleted.  I would prefer to see if these issues can be resolved by normal editing rather than during a deletion discussion. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In the interests of transparency, I'll note here that I have removed and replaced a backlink from Atom Heart Mother (suite). The "toby62" source does mention both in the same piece of prose, but a lot more weight should be put on the first performance of this work under the title 'Amazing Pudding' than a fanzine from much latter.  There may be a way to mention the fanzine in the same paragraph, but I couldnt find a way to do it without reducing readability unnecessarily.  From what I have seen, the title Amazing Pudding should be a redirect to the suite, and the fanzine renamed to 'The Amazing Pudding (magazine)'. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally, if there is a need for a dab page and both articles linked from there, I have no problem with that. I also have no issues with folks improving and expanding this article.  So long as no one brings up personalities, either to ridiculously narrow a google search or otherwise to suggest or hint that the presence of a certain person is grounds for tag-bombing based on notability, then I'm fine.  Much better to just edit the article and make it better than to waste bandwidth here discussing problems.  I'm glad to see some edits to improve the article.   Montanabw (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , Since you are banging on about search keywords, please look at your link above again. You had used quotes, but then somehow they were lost. They keywords the 'amazing pudding fanzine' without quotes has 398,000 results; when quotes are used, there are only 5,500 results.  Which is roughly the same as the search terms I used - my search used Mabbett in my search terms because any indepth coverage of this fanzine would mention the mainstay editor. Your assumptions of our motives are off; Randykitty and I work on periodicals.  I've been doing it since 2007.  Randykitty is much newer, but their first edits were about periodicals and they have done a shitload of great work in this topical area in a short period of time.  Articles about obscure periodicals are what we do do month in, month out. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To me it's a minor point, https://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+Amazing+Pudding%22%20fanzine#q=The+Amazing+Pudding+fanzine gave me 37,900 but whatever.  My point was that the tag-bombing was not needed and I smelled an agenda to argue this was not a notable periodical and so I simply did a basic search to show otherwise.   Either way, it seems you acknowledge basic notability, and that's really all I was actually fretting about.    Montanabw (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)