Yun Chol (weightlifter) – Moot. The close being challenged has already been self-reverted, so nothing left to do here. -- RoySmith(talk) 18:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Was speedily closed but does not meet any of the speedy close criteria. Claims to meet criteria 2 but another editor had a good faith delete vote so criteria 2 does not apply. Also misinterprets NOLY: "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable (emphasis added). The nominator may challenge that presumption in keeping with NSPORT (of which NOLY is a part of's) statement that "meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion." Closing sysop has been active on Wiki, in at least two clusters of editing, but has not responded to any of the three separate talk page messages. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that why I had not formally !voted in this I had commented and think, based on the evidence I have on hand, that keep is what our guidelines suggest here so this is really about the suggestion it's borderline disruptive editing to have nominated it and the out of process close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There appears to be a contradiction between the view expressed at ANI and the standard practice at WP. ANI can not establish notability guidelines, so what was said there was not directly relevant. But there is curently a discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) that may well result in changing the current guideline. If it is changed, then there will be tens of thousands of articles to be considered for deletion, but for every one of them it would really be necessary to search if sources can be found--nobody usually did a full search when most of them were created, because it seemed unnecessary, and many of them are quite old, and sources may have become available--especially with the greater access to newspapers. At present the article remains, and the obvious thing to do is to simply continue the current status until the discussion on the guideline concludes. It's not presently listed as an RfC, but it is enough of a change in practice that it should be, so the discussion will take a while. I do not really agree with a speedy close in asituation like this, but the result was correct. DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseWP:SKCRIT #2 states that speedy closure can be made if The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and... no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion. The sole 'delete' voter was not uninvolved as they were involved in the ANI thread that caused the AfD. Number57 19:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Number 57, I'd appreciate it if you ping me in the future when discussing my contributions. Now, I have to disagree with you on both parts of your statement. I don't believe that the nomination was unquestionably for the purposes of vandalism or disruption, and I don't agree that I cross the involved threshold. I commented on the discussion with my interpretation of the relevant rules, yes, not contesting that. However, in my opinion, those comments don't make me enough of a party to the dispute to cross the involvement threshold. creffpublica creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist (involvement disclaimer: delete !voter in the AfD): this is an out-of-process speedy keep, as mentioned above I don't believe that it was a disruptive nomination. This isn't a hill I'm going to die on, if the consensus is to keep then that's fine with me, but at least leave it running for the standard seven days. creffpublica creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What is the issue now? This appears to be an appeal of the speedy close or speedy keep, but it appears that the speedy close has been reverted and that the AFD is listed still or again. I think it is clear that the nomination was made in good faith but was mistaken, and that the speedy close was also done in good faith but was also mistaken. The nomination should run for seven days, and it appears to be back on, and the stub should be kept, but that isn't the issue here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The speedy close has been reverted. While it's clear this was a POINT-y and disruptive nomination and you can make a case for or against speedy close, it's all moot at this point and this discussion should be closed so we don't waste any more of people's time than we already are with the AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moot. The speedy close is reverted by the speedy closer. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Clarice Phelps – The existence of this article has been a source of contention, including two prior deletionreviews and several deletiondiscussions, one Arbitration case and even offsite discussion including media reports, so I'll be a bit more wordy than usual.
The discussion here is about whether there is enough coverage of Clarice Phelps to satisfy Wikipedia's general and academic-specific criteria for having dedicated biography pages on a subject. Please note, that failing to have a biography does not imply that Wikipedia cannot cover a topic or that we consider a topic unworthy of attention; it simply means that we don't consider the information available adequate to write a dedicated biography on a subject.
In detail, the question presented here is whether the new coverage of Phelps is adequate to satisfy WP:SIGCOV criteria. It appears that every source presented here has been contested for being a) not independent from Phelps or her employer e.g by being an interview, b) a primary source by e.g being a Who's Who list or c) only mention Phelps in passing e.g when they are mostly commenting on the prior deletion(s) of the article. That said, I see there is some disagreement about whether the WBIR and Physics Today sources actually establish notability, as it's not clear how independent they are from Phelps and her employers and some people consider them adequate (perhaps a bit vaguely explained) for GNG notability. It seems like 5 editors consider consider one or two of these two sources adequate and have given detailed arguments while 2 don't and have given detailed arguments.
There is also the possibility that the controversy about the prior deletions of this article establish notability but it doesn't seem like we have a consensus on this point. There are some weak arguments on this question too, namely blank "this is now notable" arguments that don't explain why this is the case and references to WP:THREE which is an essay.
Four other questions presented here are about whether WP:NACADEMIC would establish notability, about what the criteria for create protecting pages ("salting") are, whether there are WP:BLP concerns and about whether we are relying too much on bad subject-specific notability guidelines. On the first, it seems like there is little support for that claim in this discussion, mostly due to e.g concerns that the awards discussed are not important enough and that it might not be the correct guideline to apply in this case. On the second, it's not clear if it is in the remit of deletion review to review saltings (but see conclusion). On the third, it seems like nobody has spelled out a clear BLP concern (mentioning this for completeness). On the fourth, it's a bit outside of the remit of deletion review to complain about inconsistent application of non-GNG notability guidelines, but the discussion here does not point into a particular conclusion although it might be considered an endorsement of restoring the article on WP:IAR grounds. Finally, it looks like there were questions about whether Phelps should be discussed in other articles; I'll leave this point to editorial discretion.
On balance, while there has been very little discussion of the previous AFD close and a number of sources have been contested, there are two where detailed discussion appears to indicate that they actually satisfy WP:SIGCOV. It's not a slam-dunk and it's only two sources so the article can still be discussed at AFD if folks feel that the sources were still not adequate, but on balance this is a restore from draft. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Since this article was deleted about a year ago, two important events transpired: Phelps was featured in the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry's Periodic Table of Younger Chemists and she was recognized by several sources (including the IUPAC and Physics Today) as the first African American woman to be involved in the discovery of a new element. These events generated some coverage in independent reliable sources (albeit mostly local), which push her over the threshold of WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC (criteria 1 and possibly 2). A more up-to-date version of the article can be reviewed at Draft:Clarice Phelps. Note that this version cannot currently be published since the title is salted. Kaldari (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said the last time this was at DRV: it's appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article about Ms Phelps, and it's a disgrace that we deleted it. The fact that we did is an anomaly caused by overadherence to our poorly thought out SNGs. Don't follow a rule off a cliff, folks. Now that there's more evidence, the only right outcome is to put this draft in mainspace. Strong unsalt.—S MarshallT/C 08:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy, this again. It appears there were two new articles added to the article in the last two days - one is clearly not independent, which was the problem with the first AfD, and one is a who's who, which generally doesn't contribute to notability per our policies. I'm not great with notability on academic articles, but I'd appreciate if someone who wants to unsalt this could provide the best WP:THREE or four sources for review. SportingFlyerT·C 10:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to S Marshall Perhaps we need to formulate a better salting policy? I find that, too often, salting at administrator-level is too common, and the method to unsalt (by establishing new consensus) is too onerous, so I almost never recommend salting Draft: namespace at that level. Only do I recommend salting at that level in Main: namespace is when it's required. In most cases, though, it's not since the drafts are created by non-confirmed or, at most, autoconfirmed users. In such cases, the creation protection could've been at Extended Confirmed level so any neutral editor such as yourself, SportingFlyer, myself, et al., could've moved it back to Main: namespace when the article has demonstrated some semblance of notability. So, on that basis, without looking at the AfD, I concur with the need to unsalt here, particularly given the passage of time. If re-salting is needed, it should only be at the level necessary to prevent re-creation (that is, WP:AUTOCONFIRMED or Extended Confirmed). Doug MehusT·C 13:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was an extremely contentious AfD which the community decided to salt (at least, according to Fram's move to draft space - haven't checked the ANI logs, but I believe it based on my memory of the drama.) Moving this particular article directly into article space without discussion would almost certainly cause more drama. SportingFlyerT·C 13:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order: The community did not decide to salt it. The salting was a unilateral admin action. The salting admin later confirmed it was a unilateral admin action (I can dig up the diff if needed). At the 2nd DRV, there was explicitly no consensus regarding the salting. This isn't community salt, it's individual salt :-) (The community did uphold both deletions, however.) Levivich 15:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen, we're not the salting police. Our remit is to review deletion outcomes. The community has decided to grant sysops this tool to use at their discretion, and its use isn't within the ambit of our discussions here—except when we review appeals to restore pages that have been salted following a deletion discussion (which is actually an undocumented, easter-egg feature of this venue; it has ten-years-or-more as custom and practice but is still not mentioned in DRVPURPOSE).—S MarshallT/C 15:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation – I'm not sure at this point if she's more notable for her tennessine work or for having her Wikipedia page deleted, but it doesn't matter why she's notable–notable is notable. I'm not sure which of these constitute the WP:THREEbest, but I am sure that these constitute significant independent secondary coverage of the article topic:
Per the above sources, this article subject meets WP:GNG. Or, at the least, there are enough new sources to allow recreation, and the recreated article could (God forbid, please no) be nominated again for another AfD. Levivich 15:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't followed any of the past history, so I'm just looking at the current draft and working from that. My impression is that she doesn't pass WP:SCHOLAR. She certainly doesn't meet any of the eight bullet points under WP:NACADEMIC.
As for publications, I looked at the references in the draft, and also did searches on Google Scholar and JSTOR. I can't find a single peer-reviewed publication where she is the first or last author (those two positions generally denote the most important contributors). The only citation I found where she is first author is in the draft (Phelps, C.; Delmau, L.; Boll, R.; Hindman, C. (August 2016). Investigations Using LN, LN2 and LN3 resins for Separation of Actinium from Lanthanuum. Presentation for the 252nd American Chemical Society National Meeting, Philadelphis, PA.) but I can't tell exactly what that is, and haven't been able to find it in any of my searches. "Presentation" could mean anything from an invited keynote talk to a poster.
As for the awards she's received, the only one that's of any interest at all is the IUPAC Periodic Table of Younger Chemists. They gave out 118 of those, and the program accepted self-nominations. The awards were not given out for outstanding scientific achievement, but to people who, "embody the mission and core values of IUPAC". So, no, that doesn't make you notable.
And, no, you don't become notable by having an article about you deleted because you're not notable and the popular press pick up on that.
The other side of this is really more of a commentary on some of our more our deplorable WP:SNG's. We have articles about unknown athletes who played in a single game and did nothing of note. Two-bit porn stars. Pokemon characters. Trashy TV shows. Bands that play gigs in local bars. That's all crap. But, if we're going to pretend to have notability guidelines, let's at least pretend to follow them. There's no way Phelps meets either WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith:And, no, you don't become notable by having an article about you deleted because you're not notable and the popular press pick up on that. What PAG, RFC, AFD precedent... anything... supports this assertion? If multiple independent reliable sources publish in-depth articles about the deletion of a Wikipedia page, why isn't that GNG notable? – Levivich 04:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That statement was, of course, my personal opinion. But, as far as I can tell, the major press coverage of this was the Undark article, which was published as an opinion piece. The core premise is certainly true; women are under-represented as both editors and subjects of articles. Beyond that, it's a piece of sensationalistic crap. For example, "As far as we know, Phelps was the first African American woman to play such a pivotal role in introducing a new chemical element to the world.". Pivotal role? She's a lab technician on a team of probably 100's of people who worked on that project. This is worthy of a short mention at Criticism of Wikipedia. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If there was no consensus on the question of salting, then that was effectively an affirmation of the salt, since that was the status quo ante. Like SportingFlyer I would want to see the three best sources before supporting a motion to recreate. As chance would have it, I thought about Phelps earlier and did a quick check online then, and I didn't see anything too convincing. Most coverage is still media sources complaining about us deleting her, even though those same media sources have zero coverage of Phelps themselves. Look in your own backyard first, folks. — Amakuru (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru That's reasonable, without requiring a full consensus discussion at the village pump or similar. What about, though, lowering the WP:SALT level to WP:ECP or WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, though, to allow any neutral editors, ideally involved with AfC to move the article to the Main: namespace upon reviewing the sources and ascertaining WP:GNG has been met? Doug MehusT·C 17:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: I think the 3 best sources for establishing GNG are probably [1], [2], and [3] (all of which were published after the previous deletion discussion). Kaldari (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is the local Oak Ridge newspaper rehashing a press release from her employer. The second one is an announcement from IUPAC, who gave her the award. The third one is basically an interview conducted by the local TV station. I can't even tell what she did on the project: "part of a team", "Phelps and her colleagues helped confirm", "associated with the discovery". Well, gee, I'm associated with the biggest encyclopedia in the world. I'm part of the team that wrote it. My colleagues and I administer it. Does that make me notable? Hey, look, I'm all for more STEM topics in the encyclopedia. I'm all for more coverage of women. But this person doesn't meet our notability guidelines. -- RoySmith(talk) 23:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Are you suggesting that any of those sources somehow don't qualify as independent reliable sources or are you suggesting that the coverage isn't significant, or both? Kaldari (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More than suggesting. WP:Interviews are primary sources. Press releases, and news articles which mostly rehash such releases, are not considered to be independent. These are the types of sources that get shot down at AfD every day. -- RoySmith(talk) 00:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: The WBIR story isn't an interview. Less than half of it is quotation, so I would not classify it as a primary source. Even if all the quotation was removed from it, it would still be a useful source (and actually wouldn't lose much usefulness since most of what is discussed in the quotations is also mentioned in the prose). So I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. You may have a good point about The Oak Ridger story, however, as it seems to be largely based on a press release. Was there any problem with the IUPAC content counting towards GNG, in your view? Kaldari (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IUPAC gave the award. An announcement on their own website about the award they gave is pretty much the definition of WP:PRIMARY. -- RoySmith(talk) 02:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation. I argued against keeping the article at the previous AfD. I would argue for keeping the present version. I want to congratulate Kaldari for getting us an appropriate article. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Per my comment above, I agree with RoySmith's analysis of the new presented sources - none of them convey notability, and I'm not sure any of them come close. I understand why other users want this in mainspace, but she is not yet notable per our SNGs or the newly available sources. SportingFlyerT·C 23:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: The treehouse keeps on being built without a supporting branch. What enwiki is missing is connectivity to Phelps -- and this is needed regardless of whether or not her full article lives in mainspace. It's questionable that she should be added at tennessine for weight reasons ("part of" and "involved in" are weak and weaselish grounds for establishing notability, her teammates and probably hundreds of others have the same claim there, and her genetic heritage is incidental to the discovery), but her being the first African-American female involved with the discovery of an element is noteworthy and should be included in enwiki. In the time since the first AFD, additional sources have been released regarding the discovery of tennessine, including about the berkelium team. So: spin off the tennessine#Discovery subsection into Discovery of tennessine, in which due weight is fairly applied to the role of individuals and groups in the discovery per sources, and a more humanistic lens can be applied than should be at the main article. Phelps as first AAFIWTDOAE, and honours resulting from the Discovery accrued by anyone including Phelps can and should be included. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 02:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a very good case for unsalting this. The major claim to notability is "first African-American woman to be involved with the discovery of an element", along with things like "involved in the discovery". This source, which gives her about a paragraph, is cited five times for these claims. However it points out that 61 people could reasonably claim to be "involved in the discovery", and that the idea of crediting the discovery to one person or a small group of people is silly. I don't think it's reasonable to use the fact that somebody was part of a very large team that collectively discovered something important as evidence of notability, and it wasn't considered to be enough last time. I'm not sure the Periodic Table of Younger Chemists qualifies as an "award" as such, they seem to have done some biographies of young chemists to serve as inspirational examples, and she was one of the ones they picked to feature. I doubt most of the people on the list are notable. To pass WP:NACADEMIC point 2 it would need to be "a highly prestigious academic award or honor", I don't see evidence of that. There is some media coverage of Wikipedia deleting her article but don't think that should be enough to confer notability. I doubt it would get more than a sentence in an article about criticism of Wikipedia. Most of these issues, and the sources provided, are very similar to the ones previously discussed at great length in other debates. Hut 8.5 13:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "61 people" are just those at Oak Ridge. ORNL's part was to produce one of the precursors, and the final synthesis was done elsewhere. So, the circle of people who could reasonably be said to be "involved in the discovery" is likely more like 100's. -- RoySmith(talk) 18:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: If you want to rely on original research, Phelps was one of two people who physically performed the purification of the berkelium (which took 90 days). The only other precursor was calcium-48, which is naturally occurring. As explained in the Physics Today article, "the hardest part of the whole process is obtaining the starting materials." You can say 100s of people were involved in the discovery, but Phelps was probably among the dozen people most involved. Regardless, her main claim to notability is being the first African American woman associated with the discovery of an element, not just being associated with the discovery of tennessine. Kaldari (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, then why not an article about the first Muslim woman to be associated with the discovery of an element? The first disabled person? The first gay person? -- RoySmith(talk) 19:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if there are sources that think that's an important achievement. Kaldari (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Everybody (myself included) has been assuming WP:ACADEMIC is the correct guideline to be evaluating. As I've read more, it's become apparent it may not be. The subject has an undergraduate degree and is working as a lab technician and/or project manager. That's not what ACADEMIC is about. If somebody could suggest a different WP:SNG that might be more appropriate, I'd be willing to look at that. I still believe she doesn't meet any of WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:ANYBIO, but I'm open other suggestions. -- RoySmith(talk) 18:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate Seems like a reasonable recreate with substantial notability for her work, Sadads (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kaldari, your opening sentence: Since this article was deleted about a year ago, two important events transpired: Phelps was featured in the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry's Periodic Table of Younger Chemists and she was recognized by several sources (including the IUPAC and Physics Today) as the first African American woman to be involved in the discovery of a new element. implies two new sources. Please list them. Two new events. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You implied two. Now you toss me five, each not meeting the GNG for some reason. Non-independent promotion, or only mere mention. These do not support a biography. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: By "Non-independent promotion" I assume you're referring to the IUPAC source since they created the award. And by "mere mention", I assume you're referring to Physics Today. What's your take on the other sources? They seem adequate to me for GNG purposes. Kaldari (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oak Ridge Today isn't independent as it's a self-published newspaper that specifically says This story includes information provided by ORNL/Abby Bower. The Oak Ridger also refers to the press release several times in the article. The WBIR article is the best but it's an interview, which isn't sufficiently secondary. SportingFlyerT·C 04:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: The WBIR article is not an interview. You could delete every quotation from that article, and it would still be substantively the same. Kaldari (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
“Not this again” indeed! This was deleted at AfD. There are no independent biographical sources for Clarice. She is a showcased staff member at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Post AfD, the onus should be on the proponents to present a concise case: WP:THREE. Not reference bombing with weak sources (weak with respect to meeting the GNG). Some think she deserves an article. I call that WP:ADVOCACY. Why does she not get a mention at Oak Ridge National Laboratory? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: What strikes me as WP:ADVOCACY is people here bending over backwards to dismiss perfectly good sources and holding this article to a double standard. For example, we now have two people calling the WBIR article an interview so that it can be dismissed as a primary source. The WBIR article is a boilerplate local human interest TV news story. Of course it has sound bites from Phelps, but that doesn't make it an interview or a primary source. Can we at least agree that that one source is an acceptable source or do you have a reason to dismiss that one as well? When half the articles for sportspeople on Wikipedia are solely sourced to entries in a database, one has to wonder why this article meets so much resistance. Kaldari (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ORNL is showcasing/promoting their staff member. Combined with a "good reason" to showcase here, that spells ADVOCACY, forbidden by WP:NOTADVOCACY. I am more than happy to review a source, or three, but per WP:THREE, only three, and they have to be explicitly linked. For local newspapers writing stories that include subject quotes, it requires paragraph by paragraph analysis to distinguish a re-formatted company release from genuine independent interest. The critical question in these cases is: Who is the author of the secondary source content that addresses the subject directly and in detail. Is it the subject or the company communications officer? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. A WP:Orphan biography on someone for who most of the coverage is workplace promotion looks very bad. She shouldn't be listed in List of ... articles without being notable enough for a biography, but I advise the proponents to add sourced and WP:DUE mention to Tennessine or Oak Ridge National Laboratory as pretty obvious preceding steps. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Failure to make a WP:THREE case, yet again, prevents unsalting. When the answer is no, WP:Reference bombing doesn't help. WP:THREE is failed if you list more than three sources to be reviewed. It takes only two. If the best three fail, no number of additional weaker sources can suffice. Potential incoming links can be demonstrated by occurrences of "Clarice Phelps" in relevant articles. You can redlink Clarice Phelps, or just include as text so it can be found by searching "Clarice Phelps". List entries don't count (inclusion in a list is justified by being notable, not vice versa). She has to be subject of direct coverage in prose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. I know it only takes two, which is why WBIR and Physics Today were the first two I listed, and Chemistry World makes three. Agree or disagree that the coverage is sufficiently in-depth, those three new sources are enough to get past WP:G4 and should be enough to unsalt the title, let the draft be moved to mainspace, and then if someone wants to, they can AfD the new article, and editors can discuss whether the sources are sufficiently in-depth in a discussion that is properly advertised (WP:DELSORTed). I still think unsalting is a no-brainer here, YMMV. Levivich 06:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking WP:G4, we're talking WP:SALT, and we need to get consensus here at DRV that the article should be unsalted. I think based on the above and SmokeyJoe's analysis that it's a no-brainer here to keep this salted, as none of the new articles are sufficiently independent of either the subject or her place of employ, and the Chemistry World only discusses Phelps in the context of the fact we've been bickering over whether we should have an article on her and doesn't discuss her in the context necessary that would make her notable. SportingFlyerT·C 06:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is non-independent about Physics Today and WBIR? (And it doesn't matter what she's notable for, if she's notable. She can be notable for having her page deleted on Wikipedia. She can be notable for having the hiccups.) By the way, for WBIR, there's not just the article I linked to, but also the video on the page, which is two and a half minute local news piece filled with independent reporting in the journalist's own voice. – Levivich 06:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mainspace the draft.
Thank you Leviv, it is so much easier when someone appreciates the wisdom of three.
1. WBIR. It's a feature article, based on an interview of the subject. Does the author/interviewer (Gabrielle Hays) make any comment? "she broke a barrier"? This is very short but it is something. "While life as a scientist means the work never stops ...". While weak on independence, very weak on author-derived secondary source comment, with the information coming direct from the interviewed subject, there is enough input from the interviewer for me to say Yes, this is across the line from a reformatted interview. I judge this easier because she is not selling her own commercial product.
2. Physics Today. By Claire Jarvis. "Once technicians Clarice Phelps and Shelley Van Cleve are finished...". Is Shelley notable? "Julie Ezold, the program manager for 252Cf production, ensures ...". Is Julie notable? "That’s where Rose Boll comes in. ... Her team includes Phelps, one of many Oak Ridge scientists who came to the lab by way of the US Navy. Phelps grew up within striking distance of ORNL in Tennessee, but after earning her BS she decided the navy’s nuclear submarine program would be her best practical training ground." OK. A bit factual for a secondary source, but it is contextualizing. This information appears to not have come direct from the subject, which is the requirement. The information comes from her boss, not the subject, and the publisher is independent. This is good enough. Caption: "Clarice Phelps purified the berkelium-249 that was used to produce element 117, tennessine. She is thought to be the first African American woman to help discover a chemical element. Credit: Oak Ridge National Laboratory". Good enough. The source is not mere interview content, and the publisher is not the employer. Yes.
3. Chemistry World. By Katrina Krämer. Notable for not being notable? Ironic. I don't know how to judge this one, wikipedia relying on a source for inclusion when that source refers back to Wikipedia is to take the path of navel gazing. Luckily I said yes to 1 & 2.
I still have to disagree. Just because the information comes from her boss doesn't make that information independent, plus there's only three sentences in that article that are directly on Phelps. The local news source is literally just a repackaged interview. Neither of these are strong sources. We have no independent confirmation she's notable for what her employer thinks she's notable for - this comes from her employer's press release, and the phrase the secondary Physics Today source uses is "thought to be," she's not yet listed at our article on Tennessine, and she's not listed as a team member in the powerpoint. The notability claim itself is tenuous. SportingFlyerT·C 10:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, yes, its a very close call. Information from the boss is not independent, but at least it is not direct from the subject. Three sentences about the subject is very little. The local news put just enough creative packaging comment to make it into a secondary source. I think it passes the GNG with paper thin clearance. I give it the benefit of the doubt because it is sciency. If it were the tiniest bit WP:CORP, if there were the briefest mention of any patent, then it would have been no. Contrary to Dmehus below, this is not a strong case on any angle, but an edge case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a WP:CORP case, but it is a WP:BLP article - and considering WP:NPF, I'd assume we'd want high quality secondary sources, not sources that are closely connected to her organisation/sources which are considered "paper thin". SportingFlyerT·C 07:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no BLP issues with the draft. As she actively participated in public outreach, was interviewed by appointment for television, WP:NPF is not a hurdle. If she were resisting, if she was a private person, that would be different. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep per the thorough source analysis of SmokeyJoe, as well as the comments of S Marshall and Levivich. If these sources existed at the time of its deletion, then we got it woefully wrong. The three sources identified by SmokeyJoe are the highest grade, reliable, and independent sources that are both in-depth and about the subject. There is no point in relisting this at AfD; both WP:GNG and SNGs have been satisfied. This is a definite strong case of overturn to keep. Doug MehusT·C 10:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One can argue that she's notable, in part, for not being notable. But yeah, those three sources identified by Leviv are enough to meet the letter and spirit of the GNG. Yeah, each source has its problems (local, not fully independent, etc.) but just those three are pretty darn good. restore. Hobit (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Simmeringer Had – Endorse It seems like we have some people who think that there was a consensus that no stand alone article should exist and several more who endorse the "no consensus" assessment of the AFD close (I am counting "I really didn't see anything too much wrong with Fenix down close other than I feel he could of written his close in more details" as an "endorse"). Some people have also raised concerns with the discussion itself, insofar as there may be German-language sources. We don't have a consensus to overturn this into a "merge", by headcount this leans towards endorsing and finely parsing the arguments does not suggest a different outcome. Finally, "no consensus on upholding the no consensus close" isn't that different from "endorse the no consensus close" as both allow for further AFDs or merge discussions Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
All vote!s were either Delete or Merge but it was closed as no-consensus. The Original author is blocked as a sock, albeit after this article was created VelellaVelella Talk 03:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to merge- clearly consensus was against having a stand-alone article. ReykYO! 03:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I could see closing this as either Delete or Merge, or even Redirect, but NC just doesn't make any sense because it's effectively the same as Keep, and nobody wanted that. -- RoySmith(talk) 04:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree with the original close, but the article has been sufficiently rewritten as to make that moot. I'm still not sure this is notable, but the current version is sufficiently well written and referenced that the original AfD should no longer hold sway. -- RoySmith(talk) 19:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Overturn to Merge - It is No Consensus as to whether to Delete or to Merge, but that isn't what No Consensus means. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With apologies, I need to relitigate the AFD here. This was an AFD about the stadium of a Viennese football club, and the stadium had an article on de.wiki which rather strongly suggests there's more to this than "delete". The right outcome in en.wiki terms would be a merge to 1. Simmeringer SC and it's a pity there was insufficient discussion to reach that conclusion. I won't fault the closer for closing as no consensus when the discussion stalled without making a decision, though. I'd prefer that we leave the close undisturbed and just pop a merger template on the article; if no one else does, I'll merge when I have leisure.—S MarshallT/C 09:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, blah. I've gone ahead and added the best English-language source I could find given the DRV respite and cleaned up what appears to be some sort of machine translation. The German language article is frustrating because it's functionally unsourced and not helpful for finding sources. It was the largest stadium in Austria in the 1920s with a capacity of over 40,000 and hosted seven international games as Simmeringer Sportplatz. The rest of the sources I've found are in German, which I'd struggle with, but I'm sure you'd find stories about it in contemporary newspapers if someone can find an Austrian newspaper archive online. I'm also relitigating the AfD here, but it's clearly a notable topic and this whole AfD was a mistake, and this should have been an easy keep with just a little bit of cleanup. SportingFlyerT·C
I've now completely overhauled the article. There's a great source at [4] but unfortunately it's a wiki, but it does cite Das große Buch der österreichischen Fußballstadien (The big book of Austrian football stadiums) which I don't have access to but should be considered a RS. I didn't include that source in the article, but there's a lot more to write here. SportingFlyerT·C 13:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as the closing admin, I'm happy for this to be overturned to merge. Seemed pretty clear that there was no consensus to either merge or delete, given there were, including the nomination, only two proper delete votes (GS's one clearly misunderstood the nature of the article by questioning existence) and one for merge. Not sure about the comments about no consensus being the same as keep, its obviously not, it just means there was no clear consensus, and opens up the possibility for a relisting later. My view was that after two relistings gaining no further comment, there was no clear view one way or the other. Fenix down (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Two votes is not enough to establish consensus, and in any case per WP:HEY the article has been improved and the concerns addressed. Call the close what you want, but the article in its present form should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - after a (tentative) merge argument, it was relisted twice without comment. At some point, you have to get on with life. A NC result here doesn't really forbid merging. Announce on the talk page you intend to, then after a week or two without comment, do it. If you think it should've been deleted, re-nominate it, as it was NC with little discussion, and make an argument addressing the point about German sources. NC leaves open everything, and the combined minimal discussion and maximal chances give no consensus by lack of interest. WilyD 05:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think for an explicit Merge close we'd need somebody else to comment in support of that position. As Govvy did a good job of rebutting the delete !votes (especially the one which argued the subject doesn't exist at all) I don't think there's a consensus for deletion either. This doesn't mean the page can't be merged, there's nothing to stop somebody starting a merge discussion on the article talk page and just doing it if nobody objects, as WilyD notes above. Hut 8.5 12:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Deletion is off the cards. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What exactly is being endorsed? I really didn't see anything too much wrong with Fenix down close other than I feel he could of written his close in more details. Govvy (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Endorse" is jargon for "the closure was correct, and should not be changed". WilyD 10:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
