Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effects of Brexit on science and technology

::Note Current version: Brexit and arrangements for science and technology. Diff: when nominated <> Current.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brexit_and_arrangements_for_science_and_technology&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=774306236&oldid=773885717] 07:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

:{{la|Effects of Brexit on science and technology}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Effects_of_Brexit_on_science_and_technology Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Effects of Brexit on science and technology}})

WP:NOT - WP:CRYSTAL (spirit, not letter), "Case studies...oak trees in North Carolina example", WP:NOT#ESSAY / WP:NOT#OR (combining WP:PRIMARYNEWS needing WP:OR), so WP:NOTNEWS, "Opinion pieces" WP:NOTOPINION "Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete" which this fails. Brexit hasn't happened and won't for two years from now, but Wikipedia has an article on the "effects of that event on science and technology". This has to be the most preposterous article I've seen. If we knew what Brexit is, yes, but we don't, so this is speculation on speculation - one step too far. (per WP:CRYSTAL 1. Brexit is OK, but effects based on a negotiable-yet-to-happen future event fails 1. per 2032 U.S. presidential election example, and not like Ultimate fate of the universe as it's yet to be determined by being negotiable, so fails 3. and 5. (product) rumour is pertinent "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." - but does not apply to this)

• CRYSTAL fork of Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Widefox; talk 00:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

::Not so much a fork of that article but one of several republications of chunks from [http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002354/235406e.pdf] contrary to WP:5P1, "Wikipedia is not ... a collection of source documents". Cabayi (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

:::Brexit and arrangements for ... industry a, b, c, or place x, y, z, (i.e. Who, What, Where, When, Why) may be important news but all such articles will need rewriting once Brexit has been agreed, and are crystal-ish essay forks of Brexit / Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 bearable as a section of an article, but even as a spinout article irreparable due to WP:RECENTISM "Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens. Articles created on flimsy, transient merits. ". Widefox; talk 15:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Widefox; talk 13:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL. Cabayi (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per Talk:Effects of Brexit on science and technology 08:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC): the content is open to further improvement, such as some trimming and rephrasing in the usual way (like many other articles), but there is no need to treat its notability as doubtful. Brexit hasn't happened- Quite so, as the opening sentence states: "The effects of Brexit... include prospective changes to current arrangements related to scientific research, development and innovation that are within the scope of the negotiation between the United Kingdom and the European Union prior to Britain's withdrawal from the European Union." That can be read as a "long title". But, given that the current ("short") title has an unintended "crystal" air about it, that could be avoided by using a title such as Brexit and arrangements for science and technology. Before slapping on generically hostile and underserved tags, would it not be more helpful in respect of a new article under construction to pinpoint what are seen as parts needing improvement: where specifically do you see a problem? In my view, every UNESCO cite should give its page number. Qexigator (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

::How can we have a topic that's based on the effects of something that isn't negotiated yet? "further improvement" doesn't address the policy of WP:NOT. Widefox; talk 10:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

:*Comment Widefox's opinion noted, with dissent. The topic is obviously relevant to the Brexit negotiations, but needs a standalone article so as not to overload others. Qexigator (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

:**Comment - policy based arguments please WP:NOT has several relevant parts apart from CRYSTAL: this also fails "Case studies...oak trees in North Carolina example", WP:NOT#ESSAY, WP:NOT#OR, WP:NOTNEWS, "Opinion pieces" WP:NOTOPINION. Relevant seems WP:INTERESTING. Widefox; talk 12:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep There was some fairly early reports appearing at the same time at the Boris Johnson bus was traveling the country the country spouting his lies, about how it was going to effect funding for universities so I think as an article it is valid. They were obviously doing projections much that everybody else, unlike the the UK Government, were there was an article in yesterdays Times or Independent, discuss how they had completed no projects or forecasts on what the economy is going to be like after Brexit. Keep. scope_creep (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

::WP is WP:NOTNEWS for speculation/projections of the effects of events that haven't happened yet per policy above. Widefox; talk 12:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Further comment: ...removed by Qexigator, de bene esse 19:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The article is not simply about aftermath, as if there is now a new common era called "Anno Brexiti". It is about circumstances affecting ongoing real-life policy and negotiations for rearrangments under international treaties in respect of academic and other funding, trade, and industry, relevant to opportunities and outcomes for persons working in science and technology, and the product of their work, and for commerce and the public interest at large. The current version's section "Notice of withdrawal, March 2017" could be trimmed. On the whole the rest is factual not 'crystalling', including reporting on concerns expressed in "Public comment up to March 2017".Qexigator (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC) + 14:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

::Qexigator best to comment on edits not editors. I'm asking either detail the strawman or withdraw it per normal civility. Ad hominems don't advance a policy based argument, but underline an absence of one IMHO. Widefox; talk 17:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

:::OK, the comment was ad commentum non hominem. Qexigator (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

::::"as if in pursuit of a mission" - like to build an encyclopedia? See Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Please_do_not_take_it_personally. Widefox; talk 00:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Perhaps a name change is in effect, but the article is sourced to reliable sources, passing WP:GNG. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here because it's verifiable, sourced, speculation about the future, not baseless guessing, which is what CRYSTAL covers. If there's an issue with sourcing, that should be taken up on the talk page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

::Agree technically, except it still fails "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content". The claims are wild in the article. My point being it's more like 2032 U.S. presidential election than 2020 U.S. presidential election in crystal as it's based on effects of an event that hasn't been negotiated, so speculation on the effects of a distant future deal, which is a step too far for a topic in that it will need a complete scrap and rewrite after Brexit, per the several objections above. Widefox; talk 00:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

:::That quote comes from the bullet point about announcements and rumours for products, which obviously doesn't apply. Brexit is not a product, and even if it was, it's certainly not a rumour, with Article 50 having been recently triggered, there's a two-year deadline before some kind of Brexit happens, and there's plenty of verifiable speculation about the effects of that on science. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 12:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

::::Thanks my mistake (I've corrected nom above). It's clear crystal does allow this, so it's more a value judgement of the news vs encyclopaedic content possible summed up in the other concerns. It's a lot like trying to write an article on economic effects of Brexit - impossible to get balance and weight and all WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and will need scrapping. Considering importance of Brexit, guess no way to stop this kind of speculation. Widefox; talk 23:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep: Agree with comments the name is probably not the most suitable and suggests the article is WP:CRYSTAL but isn't, not sure what would fit though, ideas? --John Cummings (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

::I believe it's had a name change already. It's fair to say it has scope issues reflected by name changes, don't you think? Widefox; talk 20:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep A highly notable subject widely discussed in depth by independent reliable sources AusLondonder (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

::NOTOPINION "Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete". Sources a plenty, but how does it pass that? (or my corrected nom). Widefox; talk 00:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete, as the article consists mostly of original research based on primary sources, mostly newspaper clippings and politicians' speeches ("on this and this day minister Hammond said...", "on this and this day some academics from some university wrote an open letter...", and so on). This is hardly surprising, because the subject relates to an ongoing process where secondary sources (analyses, compilations, reviews) do not yet exist. However, this fact does not absolve the article from violating WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOR. I do not think an original piece of writing that just synthesises the predictions appearing in public media is what an encyclopaedic article should be about. — kashmiri ^TALK 16:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

:*Comment: We may safely surmise that, given the article's content and reflist, not even a casual reader is likely to mistake it as based mostly on 'newspaper clippings'. The lead summarises: When the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 was passed in March 2017, the terms of Britain's disengagement were unknown. The outlook was uncertain for patent protection of innovation and for the future funding of scientific research, and opinions differed on whether scientific research and development would be affected by a loss of mobility and international collaboration, or whether Britain's withdrawal from the European Union (EU) should be seen as an opportunity to expand scientific collaboration. There follows Background citing government policy white paper, followed by Human resources and Funding, citing UNESCO, Royal Society, EU Commission, Nature... and so on. Qexigator (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

::Qexigator I strongly suggest letting others tag the article with the concerns raised here per WP:OWN and let others have their opinions as this article will be stronger with more input not less. As you wouldn't let me replace 3 tags I put on with 1, I'm restoring the 3 until resolved. Widefox; talk 12:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

:::Noted, but let it be mildly remarked that Quexigator is free to counter comments which misrepresent the content of the article. ... removed by Qexigator, de bene esse 18:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Qexigator (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

::::I agree with User:Kashmiri's assessment of the article. (It's the message, not the messenger that's important.) WP:PRIMARYNEWS, WP:TOOSOON, problem with WP:10YT. (Widefox; talk 15:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

:::::Please explain what is meant here by It's the message, not the messenger that's important. Qexigator (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

::::{{reply to|Qexigator}} That's my view of the content, and I was rather reserved. If you want me say truly what I think of this article, then - the entire article is a personal essay that should never be included in any publication that purports to be an encyclopaedia of any kind. The article content is nothing but sheer guessing. Brexit has not yet happened and it is by no means certain that it will happen at all (although it is likely). However, we are still talking about guessed future effects of one possible course of political developments. Maybe you will next write an article entitled Effects of winter 2024 on Alascan flora, basing it on Canadian government whitepapers, UN climate change reports, articles in New York Post and blogs of local politicians? — kashmiri ^TALK 21:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

::::: Thank you, Kashmiri, for explaining your opinion about the article, about which, as before said, I disagree: the article is not guessing, but reporting encyclopedically information about concerns notably expressed in a current debate on a major national and international policy issue. You should not imply that I am the author of this article, but as its history and Talk page shows I have made some edits to improve it, as well as to related articles. I fail to see the point of your allusion to Canada white papers. I am well aware that "Brexit has not yet happened and it is by no means certain that it will happen at all (although it is likely)", and have made that point in Talk elsewhere, and edited to that effect. In short, your comment is way off the mark, for no good reason that I can discern. Qexigator (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

:::::: Qexigator either strike "menace", "revenge" and other WP:NPA / WP:CIVIL violations towards me, and telling other editors their comments are "way off the mark, for no good reason" or take with evidence to the appropriate place which is not here. Note to closer: please evaluate !votes here by policy based arguments - which should be the focus per WP:AFD. Widefox; talk 15:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note to closer Any closer or other person will be able to see the (agf, and therefore could be, and probably is, unintended per User:Widefox) disruptive tone of some of the latter's comments, which so experienced and practised an editor would do well (for the reasons in comments above-- some now removed by Qexigator, de bene esse 19:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)), to remove so as to clear the air of the negative objections that have been tagged and retagged,... (removed by Qexigator, de bene esse 22:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)) - good faith (of the page creator) need not be doubted, whose article is now being discredited for "COI"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohn_Cummings&type=revision&diff=774436305&oldid=774015237] - but who has accepted corrective edits and comments for adapting the article to encyclopedic style. Qexigator (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Violates WP:CRYSTAL. Too much speculation (even if it is sourced) for an upcoming or in-progress event like this to be appropriate for an article at this time. Wikipedia is supposed to behind the ball and not engage in WP:RECENTISM. That's pretty symptomatic throughout the article as it wanders around statements of what may happen or what the British government hopes to do. It clearly hasn't moved past the point of current events towards an encyclopedic topic yet given the amount of flux the topic will be under. I'm sure the topic could be notable in the future, but it's too soon right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. I dislike the title, but that's a minor matter. The essay-like and WP:OR parts need improving, but that is too. This is a live, important, and much-reported topic. Sources, easily found in just one UK WP:RS newspaper, The Guardian: [https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jul/12/uk-scientists-dropped-from-eu-projects-because-of-post-brexit-funding-fears UK scientists dropped from EU projects because of post-Brexit funding fears 12 Jul 2016], [https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/06/brexit-not-good-news-for-british-science-warn-new-nobel-laureates Brexit 'not good news for British science' warn new Nobel laureates 6 Oct 2016], [https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2016/dec/20/scientists-need-to-wake-up-to-the-opportunities-of-brexit Scientists need to wake up to the opportunities of Brexit 20 Dec 2016], [https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2017/jan/17/brexit-negotiations-voice-science-loud-clear- The voice of science must be loud and clear in Brexit negotiations 17 Jan 2017], [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/07/brexit-putting-british-scientists-at-risk-of-becoming-bit-part-players-warns-report-prospect Brexit putting British scientists at risk of becoming bit-part players, warns report 7 Mar 2017]. That's not an exhaustive list, but merely a selection of some of the results on the first page of a search. Narky Blert (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

:Just clarifying with my above post, but those links are the reason why the topic currently doesn't meet GNG (as opposed to supporting it) due to recentism issues. That shouldn't be as much of a problem after Brexit actually happens when we'll have concrete reporting of events. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Too much of an essay, and WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL problems. —Lowellian (reply) 02:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.