Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disinformation (art and music project)


 * 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 No consensus for Disinformation (art and music project) and Delete Rorschach Audio. Electronic voice phenomena (EVPs) are sometimes referred to as "Rorschach audio," after the psychological test in which subjects read their own interpretation of inkblot images. This provides confusion with the research artwork topic run by "Disinformation." Consensus is that the topic for Rorschach Audio lacks source material that is independent of control of the the group Disinformation to meet general notability guidelines. Regarding Disinformation (art and music project), the article lists many references, none of which is connected to the text in the article. However, there was little to no discussion on the merits of each of the article listed references in the context of whether there was sufficient reliable source material, independent of Disinformation, to maintain a Wikipedia article on the topic. Ignoring the SPAs, the discussion was not clear as to whether Disinformation (art and music project) met general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee    t / c  00:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Disinformation (art and music project) and Rorschach Audio
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Two audio art projects of dubious notability which came to my attention after revert warring over whether they should be nominated for speedy deletion. There is a notability claimed but it is in some fairly obscure sources. No vote from me. Sam Blacketer 14:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep the Disinformation page as the exhibits have generated coverage in The Independent, The Guardian and The Financial Times. The contents of the article need a tidy up; most of it seems like unsourced original research and it's written more like a promo than an encyclopedia article. Rorschach Audio should probably be merged into the Disinformation article as there's a lot of overlap, it wouldn't appear to be notable enough for its own article, and the sources are publications of the artist rather than substantial independent coverage. Thomjakobsen 15:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as shameless promo and COnflict of interest. If a verifiable text may be written, it is better be started from scratch. If the projects are notable, someone else must write it sooner or later. Míkka 15:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Both articles are written by sock puppets (new one each day) of the main subject 'Joe Banks'. The users add items then disappear. Both articles belong on a private website and not here. They are essays and certainly not neutral. Very repetitive a. if you read the press coverage, notability is still questionable. (as a side note, his sock puppets are also involved in shameless edits to Tacita Dean, and Lise Autogena, using those articles to claim provenance for disinformation. If article is to be retained - it must be highly edited. I suggest a fresh start is better. Redisburys 15:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC) If i'm allowed a vote, delete both Redisburys 15:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC) How can an article that long and that edited not have a talk page - unless the editors are the same person? -- 15:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC) — Redisburys (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - The Rorschach Audio page as the material on this page clearly relates to a serious research project which has already satisfied standards for academic peer-review, eg - the connection that the Rorschach Audio page claims to having been published in Leonardo Music Journal (an academic journal) by The MIT Press and supported by The Arts and Humanities Research Council, both check out. Sam Blacketer's claim that these projects are "dubious" itself seems therefore dubious, and his (or her) comments should therefore be disregarded. Although Thomjakobsen broadly supports keeping these pages, his claim that the articles contain "unsourced original research" seems hasty, as extensive citations are provided in both the Rorschach Audio and Disinformation (art and music project) articles - in the latter, sleeve notes are included within quotation marks and the CDs from which these sleevenotes are quoted are clearly cited. Redisburys claim that the articles are "repetitive" is palpably false, and his (or her) other allegations should be considered in this light; that "users add items then disappear" a/ proves nothing and b/ upon checking seems to be a comment that Redisburys is making about himself! -- 18:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC) — Emulant (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * User:Emulant being another sock puppet? CoI? Redisburys 18:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The "extensive citations", from what I can see, are written by the subject of the article (also the creator, judging from the edit history) and so don't qualify as independent secondary sources, regardless of whether they appear in journals or not. Primary sources have their uses, but when you base an article around your own interpretation of them, that's original research. You can read about it in more detail at WP:OR. The problem's even worse if, as others have noted, all the editors are sockpuppets of the Joe Banks in the article. In that case, you're basically writing an essay and quoting yourself to back it up, and there are problems of conflict of interest. It'd be a whole lot easier in the long run just shelling out on a proper website and posting the promo material there. Thomjakobsen 23:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge and keep, but cut back extensively - the credentials check out, but the tone and excessive length of coverage are clearly promotional. And the sockpuppetry and COI need stamping on, hard. Gordonofcartoon 13:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and keep. Per Gordonofcartoon. I think there are enough sources, though it is just on the edge, but it needs cutting from the looks of it. Disinformation (art and music project) does not seem to use sources. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Being recognized by academia as an arts project is fine. However, the way Rorschach Audio is written, it is presented as scientific research, which requires very different academic recognition--which it has not received. Meanwhile the article is used largely to attack Electronic Voice Phenomena. It is clear that this is a self-promoting attempt to say things in Wikipedia about EVP that would not stand in the EVP article. Even if you merge it with the second article, it remains an art-based comment about EVP that would not stand the test of NPOV. If you do anything other than delete the article, then I suggest that you merge it with the EVP article. Judging by the quality of its references, I expect it will be quickly edited out. Tom Butler 16:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * it was let in because it's the construct on one person - (the subject) - using a host of socks. -- Redisburys 18:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I should add that, if the article is not deleted, then after it is released for editing, it must be subject to the same rules applied to other articles concerning neutral point of view, verifiable references, original research and conflict of interest. The article moves from describing a work of art, which is off-limits to academic criticism in my mind, to a nonfiction, academic article with this statement alone: ""Rorschach Audio" offers the primary hypothesis that an understanding of the relevant aspects of psychoacoustics provides a complete explanation for most EVP recordings,...." There are other problem statements, but it will save us a lot of time if we just ask for that statement to meet wiki standards. I might propose an alternative solution to deletion. That is, to merge the article with the EVP article, since it is a clear-cut criticism of EVP it belongs there. -- Tom Butler 00:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's already there. Could be expanded though. That might help the article in general, since there are so few skeptical sources re EVP. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mean a link to it as a definition of a term--cut and paste. As the article stands now, I see it as an effort to camouflage a simple fabrication of explanations as art so that it does not have to be properly vetted. At the very least, there needs to be a tag placed on the article indicating that it includes unsubstantiated claims. Following some of the editing practices I have seen in the past, whole blocks of it can be properly deleted as being unsubstantiated. For instance, the loaded statement: "... (the name Disinformation is used in the spirit of what Ludwig Wittgenstein referred to as the "Liar Paradox". The research into (mostly Very Low Frequency band) radio science that was required to realise early Disinformation LPs and CDs etc provided the technical experience necessary to explain the source and behaviour of the stray radio signals that form the subject matter of EVP research...." Where is the research supporting that statement? Why have none of the wiki lawyers not demanded that he support such comments? One more interesting statement: "Nonetheless "Rorschach Audio" is an active and ongoing research project, and (under the terms of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works) every writer has a (moral and legal) right to be accurately credited as the author of their own work, and the author of "Rorschach Audio" is no exception." Based on that, the author has conflict of interest and all of the work is original research. There simply is no reason to keep this article unless it is intended to set a new precidence. Tom Butler 01:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it needs sourcing, as several have noted. You could go through it and put citation requests on each uncited paragraph. After a few weeks, if they remain uncited, the info can properly be deleted. Technically, it could be deleted now, but that would cause angst. The only reason for keeping it is that it seems to be notable: it has been mentioned in sources outside of itself. So I don't think there is a technical reason to delete it. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think some editors here are missing my point. And being rather rude about it in the process, I might add. Is that how art platoons always behave? The Rorschach Audio article is specifically designed to show that certain theories explain the experiences called EVP, specifically that idea of a "Liar Paradox". If you refer to the Electronic voice phenomena article, you will see that it is written as a balance of opinion between EVP being the mundane mistaken as phenomenal or paranormal. The Rorschach Audio is used as a reference for the mundane argument. I see no problem with that, as it is a valid theory that should be tested, but when I look at the article, I see no evidence, no research, only art by one guy who claims copyright of his art. That as a reference is circular logic. The Rorschach Audio article is fine if it is not taken as evidential. As an alternative to deleting it if you all think it is okay for self-advertisements as articles in Wikipedia, either established support for the claims or those claims must be deleted. Looking at the article, I see that little of it will be left. Tom Butler 17:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I think notability is satisfied for the subject of these two articles, though I have no opinion as to whether the articles should be merged. Certainly deleting their histories is unnecessary. ScienceApologist 17:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The author claims this is AHRC funded research. The AHRC list all award holders online. Whatever term I search, I find no reference; I've tried the subject, author and even keywords. www.ahrc.ac.uk /awards/ -- Redisburys 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's there. They clearly have a crap search engine. Go here, click Sort List By ... Holder, and you find "6. Rorschach Audio: The Reality of Auditory and Visual Illusions, Amount awarded: £234484, Award Holder Name: Mr. Joseph Banks, Institution: University of London, Date Awarded: 02/03/2007". Gordonofcartoon 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (see below) Redisburys 11:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep both pages. Critics of these pages - "Sam Blacketer" and "Redisburys" are SOCK PUPPETS of user "JPortway" - real name (artist) Joshua Portway. One page is about a music and art group, the other page is about debunking parapsychological research, so, although there is some overlap, merging the 2 pages would produce a very confusing hybrid (and these pages don't "promote" their subjects any more or less than any other pages about any eg - music or art groups). As Gordonofcartoon has proven (22:21, 11 October 2007 UTC, below) Redisburys was not telling the truth when he claimed that the credentials referenced in the Rorschach Audio page don't check out. One could only speculate about Redisburys motive for misrepresenting this discussion, but all Redisburys' claims should be regarded as suspect. -- 10:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC) — 158.223.31.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That was not my implication. The AHRC site search engine fails to find Banks' entry, even with reasonable keywords, and I see no reason to assume anything more than that Redisburys ran into the same problem. I only found it by being geeky and skimming the list manually. Gordonofcartoon 11:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not my intention to mislead, but it really does not show up using their search feature. One tends to trust such features to work. Joe - check this and talk to the AHRC. I note, thought, this is funding for a min of three years, which has only *recently* been awarded. If it needs a page would this not be AFTER or towards the end of the research -- when something has been found. I should point out that unsigned comment IP is Goldsmiths' College (Joe Banks). Redisburys 11:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason, the simple search doesn't work; you have to click through to the advanced search. Gordonofcartoon 11:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I found it via the direct link. I can now see it is there. Just pointing out thee details of the award. ( lenght) Redisburys 11:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Joe has made a care to delete his own article, we missed it in the sock confusion : the other page is about debunking parapsychological research. Redisburys 11:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but the accusation that I am a sockpuppet of Joshua Portway is ludicrous. Sam Blacketer 11:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's probably pointless, but I'd also like to assert that I (Joshua Portway) have no idea who Redisbury is (he's not me), and that it's plainly ridiculous to think that I'm Sam Blacketer. The only account I have on Wikipedia is this one (Jportway). As I told you in the email I sent you Joe, I have contacted everyone that I could and let them know that I didn't think that deleting your page was a good idea. Hopefully the people who I contacted can verify that here - I'm sorry everyone if that seems petty, but I really, really don't want this to be the start of another ridiculous paranoid vendetta.--Jportway 17:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems strange to me that when an article throws up questions about itself the users don't produce attempts at answers and clarifications but instead adopt a stalinist stance to entirely purge the article from wiki history - why focus with such vitriol on this particular entry when so many entries contain far more overtly unreliable or promotional material. Why do the questioners feel so passionate about excising this particular page? Let the article stand and let those that question it flag up the claims they question - isn't that the point of Wikipedia - infinitely editable - each article getting refined by more input? Plenty of pages blatantly promoting cultural product elsewhere, why target this one? This doesn't seem to be trying to sell anything to anyone. Interesting use of phrase - "dubious notability" - Disinformation has clearly featured in many key arts publications, galleries and arts festivals across Europe and beyond for a decade or more. I'd say that would constitute "notable", so the use of the word "dubious" seems very loaded to me in this context - what's the agenda? 17:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC) — Csawza (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep these pages! It's no surprise that a project that critiques belief that the dead speak to us through household appliances (EVP) attracts hostility from people who are a few cards short of a full deck. Before Redisburys, the last person to vandalize the Disinformation page was a lunatic with the username LOLLERCAUST11 (20 Aug 07) whose "edits" consisted of replacing Wikipedia pages with redirects to the terms "Nazi" and "Jew"; and it's interesting to see this guy Joshua Portway finally identify himself - he wouldn't have even known about this debate, let along contacted anyone about it, if he hadn't been covertly involved in it all along. I'm not impressed by sock puppets who accuse other people of sock puppetry, or by critics who can't even spell the word "delete". I found both pages informative and well-written, for that reason alone they should be kept. SmashyPond 10:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC) — SmashyPond (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Hello "SmashyPond". I'm going to be generous and assume that you aren't the subject of the article and that you genuinely don't know any better, despite the oddly paranoid tone of your posting being unusual for a disinterested observer. The reason I haven't taken part in this discussion before is that, for reasons that should be starting to become obvious, I didn't want to be involved in anything to do with deleting this page. I really don't care much whether these pages stay or go, and I was well aware that I would become the target of these kind delusional accusations if the page was deleted. Unfortunately, given the historical precedent, I suspect that if this page is deleted then I will be the target of the resulting tantrums outside the playpen of Wikipedia and I just have better things to do with my life than deal with that kind of crap. I have indeed been "involved all along" as you claim - but not in trying to get this page deleted. A couple of other people who have commented on this page already know some of the history behind this, and I am being very restrained in not publicly posting the whole sad story to this page because it would be extremely embarrassing for the subject of this article. However, if there's any more silliness in this thread (especially by apparently newly created accounts) claiming that I'm somehow victimizing Mr. Banks (and associating me with Nazi vandalism) I will be tempted to explain it all here just to show how nice I'm actually being to him. If you like, Smashypond, you are welcome to email me (as is anyone else - I'll put my address on my user page) so I can disabuse you of these conspiracy theories.--Jportway 17:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC) — Jportway (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * However unfortunate, the LOLLERCAUST11 edits are an absolute fact. -- AZLEY 15:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. But they are absolutely nothing to do with me. Are you implying that I did those edits ? --Jportway 17:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - both texts have satisfied tests for notability and verifiability. As to neutrality, issues of vandalism and censorship (by critics of these pages) are just as important, so any argument for deletion is totally OTT. Even if we accept the criticisms at face value, the most critics could argue is that these texts may need the standard Wikipedia tag for reading like a news release, at worst some of these critics have shown their own testimonies to be surreal and dubious AZLEY 15:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC) — AZLEY (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Joe, you do realize that a couple of superficial edits doesn't hide the fact that this is a new account created solely to post a comment here, don't you? Thomjakobsen 15:23, 15 October 2007 (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.