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 Keep and cleanup. Deathphoenix 14:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Fink[edit]

Marked for speedy deleteion as an nn-bio but there is plenty of assertions of notability so it doesn't qualify. I haven't checked any of the claims so no vote. Thryduulf 13:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Rewrite I can't say for sure because the author uses an IP address rather than a username, but given the other contributions of this user (see Talk:Divje_Babe), I'm fairly confident that it is WP:AUTO. Additionally, I think that WP:NOT soapbox could be an issue due to the content of the Social Activism section of the article. Withdrawing my vote After reading the article's Talk page, I won't assume the subject is NN. I still have questions about whether this is WP:AUTO or at the very least an article submitted by a close acquaintance of the subject, which is what concerned me the most about this article. --Bugturd Talk 13:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep. "I'm pissed off at the author/subject of the article and don't care whether it meets the criteria for deletion" is not a reason to nominate an article for deletion; instead, it's arguably a WP:POINT violation. Monicasdude 15:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is a tendency on wikipedia to delete all controversial pages. Just because the neanderthal flute is not accepted as a flute by many others in the field does not mean Finks page should be deleted.--Rdos 18:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but move current text to user page Definitely notable. But in the current form, a lot of it is a fairly close mirror of the Author's Background section at www.greenwych.ca. Talk at Talk:Bob Fink and Talk:Divje Babe makes it clear that this article is sourced by Bob Fink's publisher, if not Bob Fink himself [1], which makes it in breach of WP:VAIN and Wikipedia:Autobiography

  You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, and any other possible conflict of interest. Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of such articles, including one about Jimmy Wales himself [2]. Refraining from such editing is therefore important in maintaining Wikipedia's neutral stance and in avoiding the appearance of POV-pushing).

• I suggest therefore, that the current version should go to the Greenwych (talk · contribs) user page, and Bob Fink be edited down - by non-involved editors - to more encyclopedic form. Tearlach 12:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  If I recall, the autobiolgraphical policy is called a "soft" policy, whatever that means. I assume it means that the merits of the page (verifiable, notable, educationally informative) can trump the policy on occasion. Can you cite an example of that -- e.g. Wales? His edits and page remain, I think, no? The facts, docs and verifications I posted will read the same whether as publisher, I posted them with a biased relish or with bored aloofness. --Candace. I also quote "Largevelho" from the talk page:

  --Lagarvelho 19:50, 2 February 2006)"I think this article should be kept in Wikipedia. Why? Fink may not be a "well-known" person, but he is well known among musicians and musicologists, and has done important work in the field of the origins of music. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his conclusions about this subject is another question, and whatever his political views, they are more or less irrelevant to his views on the earliest music and instruments."

"The facts, docs and verifications I posted will read the same whether as publisher, I posted them with a biased relish or with bored aloofness."

• Whoever posted them, they need the same fact-checking. For instance, I have just removed to the Talk page a completely untrue claim that "Fink [in 1995] was among the first to write a computer program that could compose melodies by itself".

  Really, Tearlach, you should try to quote in context. First of all, the key words in the quote which you claim is "completely untrue" are: "among the first" and "by itself." Also check the webpage announcing the program (which was nominated by Discover magazine for one of its contests in 1997 -- we have their letter). The webpage says: "This MAY be the world's first..." and further down, Fink mentions earlier programs than his that combined snippets from existing music, but that his program works from scratch, and Fink is then quoted: "I THINK I was AMONG the first to develop such a program," that writes melodies by itself. Taking all comments together hardly qualifies your claim it is "completely untrue. Are you looking for flaws and faults rather than making serious arguments? I hope not.

  Oh, please, this is sheer sophistry. Computer generated music - including computer-generated melodies - predates Bob Fink's Serendipity by at least 20 years. Even with reservations like "may" and "think" and quibble about what "by itself" means, it's a bullshit claim. That you're trying to defend it is pretty good evidence of why this article needs independent editing. Tearlach 03:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How come you get to add your B.S. after the decision was made to delete anyway and to not alter this page???? You're a little crooked, sonny. "Among" is a real word with real meaning. But your hostile misrepresentations already got you your way. It's deleted. Whatmore do you want -- the Last Word? Okay. -- Knock yourself out! I'll leave a space for you right below. Candace 65.255.225.34 04:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of space accepted because I've no idea what you mean. The article hasn't been deleted, and I never did vote for deletion: just copying the full version to the Greenwych (talk · contribs) user space, and editing the article space version to an independently written encyclopedic form. Tearlach 04:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I also quote "Largevelho" from the talk page

• Note also that assessors of AfDs are generally alert to meatpuppets that appear as entirely new accounts that spring up to defend articles against deletion. Tearlach 00:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're implying that I organized the entry by Largevelho, that's a lie. You have no evidence for that nor can you have any. How credible would it be if I claimed without evidence that the person below voting "delete" (Douglas Smith) was some one you arranged to write in against me just because he is a "new" user? If you continue on this tack, Mr. Tearlach, make sure you format it in caps and italics and with plenty of space so it can be seen afar and thus carry more weight for your false accusations. Anyway, I've had enough of this. Say whatever you wish. Others know how to fact-check as well as you. Candace 65.255.225.34 01:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This page should be kept. Whether or not the Divje Babe object is a flute, the article represents the point of view, not only of fink, but of a number of other experts. Perhaps it could be edited and joined with the viewpoints of those who think Divje Babe is not a flute, but it should most definitely be kept. Anne Gilbert - unsigned edit by new editor Lagarvelho (talk · contribs)
• I am in complete agreement with Anne Gilbert. Robert Henvell, Australia. - unsigned edit by new editor Henvell (talk · contribs)
• Delete The article is interesting and certainly not offensive, but it appears to be written by Mr. Fink himself for the purpose of promoting his ideas and his publications, and thus to fall into the vanity category. I have not read these publications and have no opinion on their validity, but I note that many appear to have been self-published (Greenwych or Greenwich Publishers). We therefore have no idea if they underwent any sort of critical peer review, as all scholarly materials in conventional journals and books do. There are references elsewhere in Wikipedia to some of Mr Fink's ideas, and links to his personal website. Douglas Smith - unsigned comment by new editor 71.141.121.176 (talk · contribs)

  FYI: Fink was invited by Nature_journal to serve as a juror, for peer review, as an expert on ancient music. He was invited to write a rebuttal article in the peer-reviewed [proceedings] of a world archaeology conference Studies in Music Archaeology III, published in 2003. Another Fink article was published in the multi-lingual journal of the Study Group on Music Archaeology, Archaeologia Musicalis, 1988, also peer-reviewed, and also was cited in several articles in the MIT (Mass. Inst. of Technology) 2000 book Origins of Music; He also appears in Science magazine, Scientific American, and other peer-reviewed books, magazines and journals, in addition to Greenwich Publishers. See also book reviews -Candace 65.255.225.50 02:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up. [3]. PJM 22:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.