Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Amazing Pudding


 * 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 keep, per WP:SNOW.. Fish +Karate 12:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The Amazing Pudding

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominating on two grounds. 1) the subject lacks notability (this should be apparent on review of the article talk page), and 2) one of the subjects of the article is an editor who has taken ownership of the article as evident by his creation of an article for himself which redirects to the article nominated. TammyBri (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC) — TammyBri (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (strike sock — Jbh  Talk )
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 7.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 20:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Notability is very well established by the independent sources, the nomination appears to be disruptive and vindictive with possible socking involved. Theroadislong (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to Andy Mabbett. A cursory search indicates he would likely pass Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and notability criteria for books. This article has also been the subject of COI editing and self-promotion.  aka Andy Mabbett is a major contributor to the article. While there are four people named as publishers, including the founder, the only person mentioned in the infobox is Mabbett (twice) . Mabbett is also an author on eight of the fourteen references (three are there to support the claim he wrote three books) . Of the other references one is WorldCat, one is a blog, one (The Rough Guide to Pink Floyd (1st ed.)) is merely used to support the claim that The Amazing Pudding was once the working title of a Pink Floyd song, one (Pink Floyd through the eyes of - the band, its fans, friends and foes.) is used to support the claim that another of the publishers wrote a book and one is a dead link  to a piece the article says was written by Mabbett.  Jbh  Talk  20:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 19:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added a wayback link to the dead link; it was not written by me and the article does not say that it was. I'm unclear of the relevance of WP:BOOKS (which is a shortcut to WikiProject Books and not, as you claim, "notability criteria for books"), since we're discussing a magazine. http://pinkfloydarchives.com/ is not a "blog", but the website of a well-respected authority on, and associate of, Pink Floyd, Vernon Fitch, whose books on the band are ; as indeed . Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the archive link. The article said 'Andy wrote the...' and I made the assumption the dead link was to bit you wrote in the program much like the links to the three books you wrote were used to support the fact you wrote them. As to the website, blog or not, it is not, as far as I can see, an independent, third party reliable source and, in this discussion that is all that matters. I fixed my typo, thank you for pointing it out. It now links NBOOKS so it goes to what the text says it does. Now, not only the words but the link indicate the notability criteria I think is the correct, and most lenient, one to assess notability under. Could you please point out some independent, third party reliable sources? I would think the "two non-trivial reviews" would be the easiest way meet the inclusion criteria. I know most sources will be offline and so long as they are cited well enough for our readers to locate them I am more than willing to change my !vote. Jbh  Talk  18:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless you think I or one of my named co-editors at TAP is Vernon Fitch, then of course his work is independent (of the article subject; which is the requirement). It is also reliable, for the reasons I have already given. As you've already linked to WP:RS more than once in this discussion, you'll be sufficiently familiar with it that I don't need to quote it at you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The linking is from keyboard macros because I got tired of typing the same things over, and over, and over on Wikipedia. I mean no snark by it. As for the Pink Floyd Archive, I question how valid a site dedicated to archiving all things Pink Floyd contributes to independent notability. My general impression is still 'fan-site', maybe a high-quality and respectable one but one none the less. Maybe someone else wants to speak up for it. I am willing to be convinced otherwise.  Jbh  Talk  23:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 23:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Jbh  Talk  20:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  Jbh  Talk  20:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Jbh  Talk  20:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This editor has appeared, opened this discussion, and voted delete as a new editor  following this block  and this vote |here. Looks suspiciously like a sock.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC))
 * Keep They're a notable footnote in Floydiana and the nominator is an obvious, if as yet unidentified, axe-grinding sock. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Even though the nom is an obvious SOCK the article is still a COI laden heap. The only reason I did not AfD it right away when it was brought up through ANI is I wanted to spend more time doing a BEFORE since it was a niche publication from the 80's-90's. On the other hand, we have one of the main people responsible for its existence right here as an editor. If there are some good independent, third party reliable sources out there he can point us to them. Although, I do wonder — if there are good independent, third party reliable sources out there why have they not been added in the last fifteen years? Jbh  Talk  21:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We're talking about '80s-'90s UK fandom. It's recognised as being low on leaving a web footprint, or one in "establishment" publishers. See also the UK pirate radio articles deleted (at the whim of another obvious sock too - Why do socks get such a strong vote here?). This was the era of DTP and DIY-ethos fanzines. Which are great at filling people's dusty wardrobes, but things which aren't trivially on-line to WP's goldfish AfD concentration span suffer a systemic bias. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I know. That is why I had not sent it to AfD myself yet. No matter the era sources are required though. Jbh  Talk  22:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, let's go for a WP:CSD on this AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? An attack page. I know people are rallying around an editor who they feel is being wronged but this is not G10 material and, at a minimum, a there is reason to question the notability of the article on its merits. Jbh  Talk  22:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm "rallying round" Andy Mabbett? Seriously?  But this is an obvious sock, created solely to file an AfD (can they even do that, with the create page thing? Hmmm) and WP is falling over itself to run to a disruptive, attack sock's bidding? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever it is you are doing you are not addressing the arguments for deletion which I have brought up. Really, once attention was brought to the article at ANI it was going to go to AfD. The only question is when. I can say with 95%+ confidence that I would have nominated the article before Monday for the reasons I stated in my !vote. All the sock did was move up the nomination and stir up drama. Jbh  Talk  23:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - My interest is declared. Although I started the article, that was in October 2003 - colleagues are welcome to compare Wikipedia's CoI policy then (hint: it was not created until May 2004) with the current one; with which I naturally comply. My edits for the last decade or more have been confined to factual updates, requested citations, removal of vandalism, and trivial formatting such as date templates. Other, established, neutral, editors have edited it heavily in the meantime. As to notability, the magazine was discussed on national radio, and in the national press, and reviewed in the music press, and was the subject of a feature interview with me in Q magazine circa 1992 - I'll need to dig my copy out of storage to give a full citation. The claim of "ownership" is fatuous and without evidence. Relevant discussions are at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 7. I have just filed Sockpuppet investigations/BrillLyle. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't yet laid my hands on my copy, but it was issue 79 of Q, published March 1993 (cover date may have been April), and was by Stuart Maconie. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added another citation, to Nicholas Schaffner's book on the band. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Google scholar also has some data on citations. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I really don't understand the rationale, notability seems to be well established. --Muhandes (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you please indicate how notability has been established? Which source(s) do you think get it over the bar? I am genuinely interested and concerned that I may have misjudged one or more of the sources. Thank you. Jbh  Talk  22:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete despite the ... disappointing nomination. I've found one non-trivial source not written by Andy on Google Books and my university's online resources (sorry, Andy, but you don't meet the independent sources criterion!). That said, I'm open to being convinced otherwise if Andy does indeed have those citations handy. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * While my memory is not a reliable source, I recall both The Amazing Pudding and Brain Damage being name-checked in a major Record Collector piece about Pink Floyd, published around the time of the 1994 Division Bell tour. So I believe there is coverage in independent-sources, just nothing more than passing mentions. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There was coverage in several issues of Record Collector. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed there was, but I'm struggling to recall anything that wasn't simply "The Amazing Pudding is a long-established Pink Floyd fanzine". What do the sources day? Did the fanzine have any endorsement from the band or related personel? Did it offer exclusive interviews or deliver important information? What did the fanzine produce that would make people who can't stand Pink Floyd sit up and take note? (And, while I know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, if we can have an article on this, surely we can also have Brain Damage (fanzine)?) Ritchie333 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Record Collector reviewed individual issues. Since you ask, I personally interviewed David Gilmour, Nick Mason, Roy Harper (more than once), Peter Jenner, James Galway, Sam Brown, Clive Welham, Robert Wyatt, John Bundrick, Daevid Allen, and others for TAP. The band were pictured with the magazine in publicity shots. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, well that's the sort of information that needs to go into the article (don't look at me, I haven't got the sources) as it will help cement notability. I think the COI issue is a red herring; if you are citing information to prove notability in a manner that any other reasonable editor would have done too, then I don't see a problem. As I have said before, I don't think the COI policy was designed to prevent subject experts from correcting facts or supplying additional information. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to oblige, but they'd be cited to the relevant issues of TAP, not third-party sources. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Likely keep. According to one of the former editors (not Andy), the fanzine received contemporaneous coverage in Q, Record Collector, The Observer and News of the World. It may be tricky to dig up archive copies of those publications, but if the coverage actually existed, then this subject is very likely to meet WP:GNG. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Strong Delete. Beside the obvious COI in the fact that (a) the page was started by Andy Mabbett and (b) Andy set up a redirect to his name to point to the page, which let's face it, is a bit insane in any evaluation of the matter, the issue is that this article is just not adequately sourced from independent sources non-Mabbette. It is not successfully establishing notability. The fact that the majority of the citations are references to itself underlines this problem. If the article was significantly expanded and sourced appropriately then that would be another matter. But as it stands, and with the COI of the major contributor and stakeholder so clearly problematic, I think keeping this article on Wikipedia is a real mistake. It makes the encyclopedia look like a joke, really. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried to do a bit of cleanup of the article, because I like Pink Floyd and appreciate fan-based collectives as much as the next person, but I had a hard time finding information to support notability. And any cleanup I could do was changing 7 digit ISBNs to 13 digit, and adding a curated WorlCat OCLC link. I did this as a good faith effort to contribute and be positive here. Nothing else. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I did a bunch of further edits to the page, hopefully removing the fancrufting that initially concerned me (i.e., the number of TAP references), and added additional citations and content to support the zine as a notable publication. I resolved (in my own mind at least) the other concerns I had about the related publications, as the more I learned, the more I found out that TAP was a strong basis for these connected publications. Some of the 15 citations are a bit thin, I acknowledge, but until and if Mabette digs into his clippings archives for substantive coverage of the zine, this suffices (again in my mind) as an adequate and notable stub article. This issue of unavailable citations due to the pre-internet nature of the publication's lifespan is not uncommon, so I think a somewhat inclusive approach to these citations is okay. I am still not convinced that the Andy Mabbett redirect is wholly necessary, but whatever the consensus is, so be it. And see, Andy, I'm not a total bastard, am I? Ha ha ha.... :-) -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In his continued efforts against me, on the ANI board Andy and other editors have made it clear that these efforts are not appreciated, however much they might improve the article. So I will stop editing this article now. I am a naive fool thinking this was about editing at all -- or improving content on Wikipedia. Forgive me. - Erika aka — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrillLyle (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge with Pink Floyd . I don’t think there’s enough for a dedicated article, but it does deserve a few setences at the main band article, as does fellow fanzine Brain Damage. Given there are strong opinions towards both keeping and deleting the article, a merge may be a suitable compromise. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I do confess I have at times wondered if I could turn Andy Mabbett into a full article, since he is known for both his Floyd books and his WiR / Outreach work for Wikimedia, both of which have some coverage in sources. In fact, I would argue he is more notable than this article. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Upgrading to Keep - article appears to have been nicely expanded and cleaned up, and has a few facts I didn't know about (and I've done more than a bit of work on Floyd articles myself). Now, who wants to create Brain Damage (fanzine)? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Honest question: Since this page is a redirect to Andy Mabett, is there a conflict of interest that would prohibit him from editing the page, which he is currently doing? I know there is no remuneration in a fanzine, but it is so interconnected. I would think that de facto editing your own page is not acceptable, so editing the page your name redirects to would therefore also be problematic? Not trying to be a jerk here, just genuinely wondering about this. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be Best Practice for him to make a note of the real life connection on the talk page, but as long as he keeps the editing within NPOV and enhances factual accuracy, there's no problem whatsoever with him editing here. Carrite (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have indeed added such a notice - . (It's still there.) Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * But this page is not a redirect to Andy Mabbett. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Bad faith nomination. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: Would this not be user-forced withdrawn? Otr500 (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not now there have been delete votes by good-faith editors, no.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Enough sources have been provided to establish notability.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Snow keep Bad faith nom by blocked account. Also plenty of independent sources to demonstrate notability, particularly on, as noted, a topic that is pre-Google in origin.  Montanabw (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.