Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MineCam


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn. Withdrawn  MBisanz  talk 00:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

MineCam

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I myself am neutral, but I'm concerned about this being a vanity page for whoever is making this product. Not too sure about notability either. Listing for discussion. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nom withdrawn.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Share noms concerns - author seems to have WP:COI too (also authored I.A.Recordings). MineCam isn't a product as such either just a one-off creation from what I can garner from the references. If this was a vote I'd vote delete Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm afraid that I am completely confused by Wikipedia policies. MineCam is definitely not a product, but it is unique and I would have thought a worthwhile subject for an article as it has been used by volunteers to explore underground industrial archaeology and re-discover lost subterranean buildings. The text is based on a published source and there are verifiable citations and references. I have read many similar specialist articles on Wikipedia and I wrote this one in good faith, but I am disillusioned now. Please delete it if you want to. John Logie (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be disillusioned, that's one reason to bring articles here to AfD: to get consensus on whether they should be included. On reading the Radio Shropshire reference again,maybe this article could be merged and redirected. The problem is, as a one-off piece of kit its very difficult to establish its notability Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, if it were not one-off it would be a product, so wouldn't the article be criticised as an advertisement? This doesn't always seem to be a problem judging by two named product articles in the Video_hardware category and several in the Robotics category. Some of the latter describe a specific device in much the same way I have and do far less than I have to justify any claim of notability, so I am still confused about what I have done wrong. Would it help if I mentioned some specific sites it has been used at and discoveries that have been made with it? Unfortunately I will not be able to cite many independent references, as the results are video recordings and not necessarily published in written form. Some were recorded at sites which the landowner wishes to keep private. All recordings are kept in the I.A.Recordings video archive for posterity. John Logie (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats the crux of the issue - to be in wikipedia it needs to have verifiable references from secondary sources. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * John, understand that this is not a matter of being wrong or not, or having done this in good faith or not. There are other things on Wikipedia that might be less than appropriate, especially if they were written before tools like User:AlexNewArtBot were around (which is how I found this article in the first place). Note that no one is saying delete so far, but we're trying to establish notability. This is a protection measure against people who want to use Wikipedia as an advertising space. As for references, you can use material from whoever is making this, especially when things like specifications, design information, etc... are concerned. You just can't use it to establish how "useful" or how "good" it is. Aka if the page says it outperforms any other similar products, we obviously can't trust that.


 * Using references for sections like "History" would help, and rewriting it in more neutral/encyclopedic terms would help a LOT. Sentences like "Why not lower a video camera instead?" should not be used, see WP:TONE for more detail on this, but the jist of it is an article should not read like a conversation, or a story told by someone over email. The external links could be turned into references for a lot of the stuff mentionned and certainly do make a case for notability.


 * I'll withdraw my my nomination for now, as it seems my concern are dealing with the actual state of this article more than its potential state. Someone can close this now.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help and the re-write. The 'chatty' approach was chosen because I had seen an article with a WP criticism box complaining about its terse style and suggesting it should be made more readable! I obviously went too far. I have made changes as suggested by your in-line comments and added the first citation. Unfortunately without referring to 20 year old equipment catalogues I can't find a source for the the next two - the notion that in 1988 portable electrical generators were expensive or cumbersome, or that miniature video cameras were low quality; so I had to re-word those sentences. I hope that is acceptable. It seems to be extremely difficult to find documentary evidence of the state of technology or the cost of equipment at a particular date in the past. I haven't even been able to find a detailed enough timeline or chronology of video camera developments. Best Wishes, John Logie (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2009 (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.