Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Clark Amplifier Challenge


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard Clark Amplifier Challenge
Doesn't seem to be an encyclopedia article. But instead seems to be promotional material. Probably something that only Richard Clark knows or cares about. Rob 06:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The test is a historic event which is known to and discussed by thousands of people at a minimum. Entering "Richard Clark" "Amp Challenge" into google returns 367 bonafide and mostly unique hits.  As the author of the article, I do not know Richard Clark nor have I had any communications with him.  I posted the article as a service because many people are confused about just what the challenge was and what it meant. Sprexumn 06:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Googling confirms Sprexums take on this. Artw 06:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as probably unverifiable, but the article is new and so is the author, so who knows? To me, this appears to be strictly a webforum discussion topic which has yet to penetrate into even the trade magazine level. I very much doubt that a reliable source will be found to verify any part of it. Melchoir 07:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless verified and that evidence can be found that the Challenge gets Amps all the way to 11. MLA 07:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete looks promotional and unverifiable. Nearly Headless Nick 08:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete looks promotional to me. --CapitalR 09:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm working on getting this more verifiable. As far as "promotional", can anyone point me to the wiki policy on what is promotional and what isn't.  The deletion policy page does not mention the word "promotional" at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy so it's not clear to me that promotional is a valid grounds for deletion, but I'm a newbie and want to learn.  Sprexumn 17:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy is WP:NPOV, which requires content be neutral (by nature, that which is promotional is not neutral). Being promotional, alone, does not require deletion if it can be fixed.  The only way to provide neutrality, is to have multiple independent reliable sources discuss the topic.  I don't see that, and don't see how this article is fixable.  Also, message boards, blogs, and personal web pages, are not adequate secondary sources, you'll need to find some reliable publications that have written about this, which may be difficult.  --Rob 17:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As I was writing the article I attempted to take the neutral POV. I attribute assertions to others.  I present a range of points of view, both woven through the article and in 4.18.  I am having trouble seeing how the article diverges from neutral POV.  I do understand that the NPOV issue is secondary to the NV issue but I'd like to know what about this article violates NPOV if just for my learning. --Sprexumn 18:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the article in detail, but for future reference, FAQs aren't a good idea. They lend an unencyclopedic tone of voice to an article, and that generally implies some kind of POV. There's a brief note at WP:NOT. Melchoir 22:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete. (See any difference?)  Doesn't look promotional, but does look unverifiable.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2006 (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.