Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vemix


 * 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Vemix

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable neologism from non-notable person - has been PRODded, de-PRODded by original creator, re-PRODded by a second editor (against rules, probably didn't notice first PROD) with reason "non notable neologism closely related to spammyness/promotion for PDRPRTS", so bringing it here for a decision. Pam D  07:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  07:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  07:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * delete as the mistaken reprodder. Very annoying the creator abuses process to avoid or rather postpone the imo inevitable, the deletion of this article, which makes me further suspect promotional motivations. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * annoying to me is the 1984 attitude when it is clear this comes from a space of love. your reason for deletion is that im "not notable", in you own words.. i honestly thought this kind of limited perspective was the reason why the wikipedia was founded, to go beyond it? what u r saying is that one that isnt in the system has no space here even if the proposal is coherent and sound, well put? this would mean for instance that the wikipedia wouldnt put up information on the earth being round, cause no one believed it for a long time. or about the wright brothers and their plane like most people until 5 years later, when people started believing. this is no different.. this is a vision up for recognition of those that can see it works regardless of the notability of the proponent. it's a new style. judge my vision and fail it if u cant understand it, or accept it if u can. but dont judge me, thats what is annoying.. i deleted ur markup cause it said that my proposal was rejected because i was of no proven notability.. honestly i believe im doing a service to the vision of wikipedia.. if u cant take an honest idea with practical examples, wanting to inspire other creators and myself for free without any intention other than sharing a vision in art, just because im not known in ur world, then what to do.. it is ur prerogative to see in which side truth stands here. that i can accept.. but dont think that u r not going against what the wikipedia will stand for throughout the ages, the new world. i will not rest and go through all the means possible to make sure the wikipedia removes the non-notable notice in the name of heart. evaluate ideas, dont evaluate people, that, dear wikipedia guardians, is not something humanity should be spending any time on.. this is what is inevitable for me. thank you for your consideration. love — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sontarieh (talk • contribs) 10:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Sontarieh, glad to see you are engaging in discussion rather than reverting. Let me go by your points one by one: "your reason for deletion is that im 'not notable', in you own words" No, the reason deletion is proposed is that vemixing doesn't meet our notability guidelines, found at WP:N. Weather they represent your definition of notability somebody elses, or nobodies doesn't really matter - they are still the criteria for inclusion, weather we call it 'notability', 'occurrence of multiple independent reliable sources which give significant coverage to the subject' (which I myself find somewhat unwieldy in conversation), or anything else. Also note that I'm not saying you don't seem to meet the criteria for inclusion (I haven't looked in to that), but at the very least that vemixing doesn't. It does indeed also mean that if there are no independent reliable sources that earth is round, we don't report it is round. Fortunately, there are plenty of those (when I'm not nitpicking with ridiculous words like ellipsoid). I'm not judging your vision, I'm saying it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. I am judging you, as your behaviour here has been - and still is - aimed only on inclusion of vemix, and be willing to disrupt the encyclopedia all the while. Deleting stuff from Wikipedia is a grave matter, which is why we have lots of red tape around it. You rejected the lighter proposed deletion process. You didn't ask anyone to explain what was happening, you just pushed your own point of view. This article in my opinion has no chance in being kept in a fully fledged deletion discussion like this, yet you still force the discussion. From that I get the feeling you are not trying to build an encyclopedia here, but push your point of view, which is due to it being your 'brain child' is pretty much guaranteed to be non-neutral. This leads - probably not intentionally - to wasting pretty much everyones time involved in this, just for you to have gain all you can gain from Wikipedia. And you still defend that. Quoting you "i will not rest and go through all the means possible to make sure the Wikipedia removes the non-notable notice in the name of heart" meaning, I will continue to absorb every ones time and effort here to present my own pet project, yes, I do judge that, and I ask you sincerely to abstain from that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable neologism, and unless I'm misinterpreting "it's a new style." Wikipedia is not the place to seek promotion. ALH (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable, no reliable sources, neologism that hasn't taken off and is unlikely to. Also, the idea of remixing a music video is hardly as new and special as the article writer seems to think: RockAmerica was doing exactly that 30 years ago. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  11:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * it's not the same thing.. it is using colors and light as an instrument! it is not just remixing images, it is vemixing them into the sound. this conversation wil go down in history, trust me. u r just like the decca exacutive that told the beatles to go back to liverpool cause 4member music bands were out. check out the work itself if u think it is not new.. check it out with ur hearts rather than judging without seeing. im not asking u if u like it, just check if u really ever saw anything like it.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sontarieh (talk • contribs) 11:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL. Ok, you lost any remaining sliver of credibility you might have had when you started comparing yourself to the Beatles. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  11:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * =)) im not comparing myself to the beatles mr blind to the stars, im comparing u to the decca executive that didnt even listen to their music! ok for real, i will quit this (for now) if u honestly say that uv seen work like im proposing.. im not asking that u like it, cause it is intense and over ranges that we r not used to perceiving, but just please consider it! if uv never seen anything like it, and it is coherent, than the only remaming issue is whether or not im notable.. my whole discussion here is exactly because i believe that in the wikipedia of all places, a human being should be notable just because he is born. in any case thank u for laughing, i was begining to think i was talking to robots! love


 * Delete. As the editor that erroneously tagged it for CSD (after the article was de-proded by the author - didn't check for that). According to google it is either a stock market index, a web site development company or a brand name for reasonably priced ladies wear. What Wikipedia is not.--Ben Ben (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Mixing colors, lights and videos with the sound is a very well known technique used in Generative art since the '80. The topic lacks media coverage from primary / secondary sources; the only source is Pedro Prates citing him-self, which is against WP policies and not enought to support notability of the topic. Toffanin (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 1000101110111101110 11011100010 11000101 0110011 1001 110000 10101 1001 001010 1001111010101 010101110 1010 11101010 101001 01 it is - not - generative art. ask someone that u consider an authority in generative art, and she will tell u if it is the same thing. it is the same thing in the sense that beatles and metallica play instruments and sound comes out of it. please do not dismiss something u clearly do not understand in the artistic sense just because im not famous to u.. i am notable just because i am. the non-notable reference simply has to disappear from a free wikipedia, evaluate proposals not if someone is worthy of presenting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sontarieh (talk • contribs) 15:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't write that Pedro Prates is using Generative Art in his (your?) works, but that the idea of remixing colours, lights, sounds of a video (vemixing) is a very well known technique in the Generative Art since the '80, and even before was pioneered by the VJing movement (with the most notable case of Andy Warhol in pop art). Pedro's works / ideas are not prior art, nor is the vemix neologism. The problem here is very simple: the article about vemix is suggesting a concept similar to Remix and Dubstep but applied to video instead of music, so far so good, but that article is lacking verifiability, which is the point that you are constantly ignoring. You need to provide reliable sources about the existence / usage of the vemix neologism, instead to publish your original research (which is against the rules and the main reason of the proposed deletion) or making personal attacks. Content must be verifiable before you can add it to Wikipedia, but as you said, you are not notable, you can not be a reliable source. In light of the debacle of your so-called artistic knowledge, it's hard to assume good faith. Toffanin (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a good point that we should evaluate proposals not if someone is worthy of presenting them, and that's already an important policy with regard to contributors, see WP:NPA which reads in part Comment on content, not on the contributor. But with regard to sources, assessing the assessor is central to our mission here. That's one reason that WP:COI is important, to make it possible to distinguish between evaluating a source (which is valid and important) and assessing a fellow contributor (which is in most cases contrary to policy, and often also an ad hominem logical fallacy).
 * And note that there are limitations to WP:NPA. It's not a personal attack to call attention to a contributor's failure to abide by policies and guidelines. And limitations on these limitations, notably WP:AGF. There's a lot going on. Andrewa (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. There has been quite enough opportunity to provide sources, I've had a quick look myself quick google second try Google books actually suggests other meanings of vemix are more common, and at the risk of argument from silence, there seem to be none. Andrewa (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * hello there. thank you for finally recognizing that what im proposing is new, "similar to remix and dubstep concepts, but applied to video." that is true, but it is actually much more than that if u r sensitive to color movements with sound and vice versa, many echos spawn in boths aspects - a third aspect is actually spawning to sound and light, and this is what is very new in recognition, it feels organic. yes many movements like the vjs and even itunes and media player visualizers, and lava lamp slides have done before, and those are inevitably an inspiration in this case, but not more than houses were a precursor to skyscrapers.. the multi-dimensionality of this work is simply not comparable. there are other uses of the word vemix, thank you, but those r referring to simple remixes put out with video in all the examples u provide. meaning monodimensional remixed audio published with video. this is not what im presenting. you ask for sources. can you help me understand what you mean, for i fail to see how i could present any other. i can talk about what is done here and explain, but is what u r saying that until another publication publishes what im saying, the wikipedia cant? thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sontarieh (talk • contribs) 18:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Wikipedia does not publish original research. If it hasn't appeared in other publications, and particularly in secondary sources, then Wikipedia is not the place for it. And you seem to be confirming that this is exactly the case. Andrewa (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * yes, thank you for clarifying, that is the case. it will be a pleasure to be back then if things go as i expect, thank you all for your time and peace. love and luck


 * You should read this Wiki's section NEO too. Toffanin (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. A neologism unsupported by reliable sources. Jschnur (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2013 (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.