Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LiquidO Detection

{{Not a ballot}}

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=LiquidO Detection}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=LiquidO Detection}})

This is an interesting technology, but based on the available secondary sources, I believe it's WP:TOOSOON.

The article itself is also a disaster: clearly a massive WP:COI violation, as the primary author of the article has the same name as the primary inventor of the technology, and the whole thing reads like a massive press release. Even if WP:TOOSOON doesn't apply here, WP:TNT surely does. PianoDan (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Delete I disagree with the nominator in that I think it reads less like a press release and more like it was copied from a report to a funding agency. Other than that, though, I concur. It's an article-sized WP:COI violation that would need to get blown up and restarted from scratch, even if having it were warranted, which is doubtful. The secondary sources I can find don't go into much depth at all. [https://doi.org/10.1088/1572-9494/ac5245 This] is barely a mention, and [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PrPNP.12403947A/abstract this review] gives it only a sentence ({{tq|The potential for improving the identification of inverse beta decay and reducing background is apparent with a novel detector using a dense array of optical fibers immersed in opaque scintillating liquid}}). That and the recent publication date are a strong WP:TOOSOON signal. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• There's more. Several of the sources aren't sources but links to author profiles next to author names, as if this were a paper. And over a paragraph of the article tells us things that were "confidential" and never published. This is just not written as an encyclopaedia article at all. Looking around, I'm not finding the independent sourcing for rewriting, or even re-stubbing, this. Checking the stuff that cites the 2019 Communications Physics paper, for example, I'm not finding that the rest of the world has written about this in much depth. Uncle G (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Delete even if notability was somehow established, WP:TNT applies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• Delete, for the reasons given above.--Srleffler (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep I strongly disagree with the deletion of this article. First, I would like to suggest that we assume the good faith of the main editor of the article. He is clearly involved with the subject and I agree that some parts needs adaptation regarding the styling (MOS:NOTE was already suggested at the beginning), but it is a relevant subject to be in an encyclopaedia and there are [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=LiquidO+Consortium+detector several reliable sources] about it, some of them already in the references. From the page logs, It is also clear that the author sought some support and started editing on his sandbox, it already indicated for me his good will. Anyone here more experienced with editing Wikipedia knows how difficult it can be at the beginning to follow all its rules, and it's undeniable the effort already made to create relevant content in this article. Thus, saying that the article should be blown up and started from scratch can sound offensive and for sure is demotivating for beginners. Regarding the conflict of interest, since the author is one of the main active researchers on the topic, I would try to kindly advise him on how to proceed in such cases. Again, that doesn't mean that everything should be deleted, but adapted and improved, and the talk page of the article could be a good start for this purpose. --everton137 (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• :Rather than simply posting a blanket Duck Duck Go search - which references in that list do you specifically think clear this article of WP:TOOSOON? I agree that most of the sources in that search are cited on the page, but they're almost entirely single-author primary sources. I don't see any notable secondary coverage. PianoDan (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• ::Yes, merely linking to a page of search results isn't enough to demonstrate that good, usable sources exist. XOR'easter (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• ::::No one assumed bad faith from the creator. However, an article isn't subject to a pass just because it was created by newcomer who 'worked hard'. The article isn't suitable for inclusion in its current state, and has deep profound flaws that make it harder to fix than to create from scratch (assuming it meets WP:N, which is not clear it does). This comes from this article being written for an audience other than a general encyclopedia, by an author who is not unaffiliated with the project. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Keep (welcome to hear suggestions).

:I am the main author of the article here: a professional scientist with recognised and renown track-record in generating knowledge in neutrino science and leader of several international scientific collaborations, including order hundred of scientists across many countries. More precisely, I am the spokesperson of the LiquidO consortium (about ~70 scientists in 22 institutions over 10 countries), which implies supporting our communication/dissemination strategy for which there is NO interest other knowledge generation — our job.

:Since WIKI's main goal is to favour knowledge dissemination and WIKI provides the means for this knowledge to be provided by those who generated it, we have provided our article on LiquidO Detection — first article ever in WIKI for me. So, I am certainly new and inexperienced in WIKI and the set of rules/conditions that articles must meet upon publication. Hence, I certain welcome all constructive feedback that would frame our contributions most usefully to the community. Any other conclusion may be likely rooted in some kind of misunderstanding. In any case, I do appreciate if we keep as basis for exchange the main guidelines of WIKI: a) "assume good faith”, b) “be polite and avoid personal attacks” and c) “be welcoming to newcomers”. Extra comments regarding the "LiquidO Detection" article here:

:Contribition Publication Context: when I wrote the article (originally in my sandbox), I was proposed to publish it, including some feedback by “expert(s)”. I welcomed this very much as I hesitated on how to proceed (given my lack of experience). Indeed, this promised feedback reassured me to proceed with the contribution(s). Moreover, I was told that the “publication consideration period” (some kind review or evaluation, I gathered) that could last up to ~3 months, period over which I was encouraged to continue to improving the article while still unpublished. All this information was provided by WIKI and much of that never happened. To my greatest surprise (or even shock), the article got published within 24 hours with NO feedback whatsoever was ever offered.

:Given the lack of the feedback upon publication, this was some kind of encouragement to proceed following the same lines of the original writeup. Since the article was far from the standard I intended (approval was far faster than told) and it had not yet been fully validated by all my collaborators (i.e. our LiquidO consortium of professional scientists), I was forced to push for further article for completeness and prompt some collaborators for urgent validation of the contents (successfully). Note: the contents are now being reviewed by the full team to further scrutiny the contents. So, some modifications may be expected. To add insult to injury, a few days after publication, we entered into another degree of shock when we discovered that some WIKI experts proposed the deletion altogether — thus directly wasting all the work and disposing its contents as outcome. This is far from the “be welcoming to newcomers” guideline of WIKI from which kind, supportive and constructive feedback. It is altogether surprising that some WIKI experts appear more focused on hammering contributions without offering alternative solutions to ensure knowledge is preserved, specially considering that the knowledge is provided by the scientific professional knowledge generator community. Is this really the message that WIKI community wants to pass here to the scientific community? This seems a rather contradiction to what the wikipedia should stand for. In fact, "delete knowledge kindly provided by first-line experts” should be the last resource, should any mending strategy failed. Also, trashing the effort of others seem right against the WIKI project voluntary basis. If an article, providing proved knowledge, including renown references, failed to match the standard of WIKI, we should trigger support and guidance — not rejection. Moreover, having "first-line experts" to contribute to their knowledge in the wikipedia should be encouraged and supported, else the main WIKI project may be jeopardised.

:Beyond the above general impressions, I have duly gone through reviewers your comments and here is some feedback:

:# First, for politeness, I will skip some of the unfortunate terminology used above and/or other appreciations (such as whether article was “massive press release” or a copy “from a report to a funding agency”) in general speculative and incorrect. I would only say that some of those remarks do not seem aligned with the WIKI principles of a) "assume good faith” and b) “be polite and avoid personal attacks”.

:# Second, I would avoid discussion about scientific judgement as this is done, like in all other scientific fora generating knowledge, via peer reviewed publications, conferences and proposals for support/funding. In fact, on those grounds LiquidO is very well served; indeed very successfully despite its early age in technology. Hence, the information provided meets in full — to be best of my knowledge and ability — the WIKI policy as it relies on FACT(s) — with dates — based on information publicly available supported by recognised publications (even Nature) and world leading scientific fora or conferences. Further information may be provided, if needed. Should you have any question or suggestion on how to improve, we surely welcome that.

:# Third, I have gone through the wikipedia deletion policy. I see the article contents do NOT meet any of the 14  listed “reasons for deletion”. Moreover, there exist “alternatives to deletion” (same article; such as “tagging”, etc), none of those has been proposed. Why? Hence, I conclude that the proposal for “article deletion” is both disproportionate and unjustified. Of course, any reasonable discussion for possible improvement is highly welcome, as reiterated and intended, as explained before.

:# I gather that the main possible concern is that I wrote in the article and I am indeed "conceptor" of the technology (substantiated by many of the reference provided), thus I understand this is alluded as a possible [wikipedia conflict of interest |Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]. Instead, the article states the facts (to the best of our knowledge) and those facts should not entail as any kind of handicap or discrimination for contribution to the wiki by me — or anybody else — unless an abuse was identified. I state to my honour that no abuse was intended and, if anything may be misunderstood, I offer immediate resolution. On the hand and as argued before, I understand the wikipedia community should appreciate and encourage the direct contribution form the "first-line expertise", in this case any of the LiquidO scientists or experts. The fact that the article is in WIKI, implies we are opened to the scientific community feedback too. Note the articulation employed is similar to other scientific articles in WIKI, but room for improvement exist, given the above explain conditions explained (WIKI beginner and rushed contributions by WIKI faster than expected approval for publication). Still, I went nonetheless through the [wikipedia conflict of interest |Wikipedia:Conflict of interest] and I did not find any evident direct breaching of the rules by the article. Beyond the aforementioned historical note (including some key names). The article is not about me (or my family o my company, etc) but about the scientific knowledge generated and the status of the technology led by the work of a scientific collaboration (~70 people). While my writing style is unlikely tuned to the wiki style — yes, my work is about writing papers and proposals where several Nature’s and some millions have been achieved so far — I am very happy to be advised and guided, so that the article meets the intended tone. I do thank you in advance. Note this is indeed the constructive approach we expected from WIKI (“be welcoming to newcomers”) and we have so far not felt.

:# Last, the article is indeed “orphan” on purpose because, as explained, we did not want to connect it yet to other wiki articles, since we awaited for all my collaborators to review it (ongoing) prior to proceed with further propagation and dissemination.

:So, I am compelled to request the reconsideration of the deletion of the "LiquidO Detection” contribution, for which I fully disagree since a) the article provides unique knowledge so far missing in WIKI (incontestably the most important for us and WIKI) and b) the original authors are open to improve its style, should support be provided, as originally promised. So, I'd like to propose that we convert this discussion into a constructive, sensitive and respectful dialogue (less time-consuming and more enjoyable) to ensure more and better knowledge is provide to the WIKI as a way forward. So, I kindly ask you — wiki editors / experts — to kindly help me (us) help you with our contributions to WIKI, please. We are professional scientists with NO interest(s) whatsoever other than pure knowledge generation and dissemination, both our job, and we offer our knowledge to the community from which we'd be delighted to count on your kindest support and knowledge. Our team and myself would surely be most grateful. Anatael Cabrera (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• :Keep and improve I also think this article should be kept. Certainly, the work of a beginner, which can be improved. Yes, the writer and the developer are the same, but I think that experts should be allowed to write about their work, with proper references and scrutiny. Not ideal, but not a reason to delete it all. Ajgw56 (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment from nominator. First, I DO appreciate the author's enthusiasm for sharing their work on Wikipedia.

:However, I'd like to suggest they carefully read WP:COIE. "Do not edit or create articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors." Personally, I'll edit articles about particle accelerators, but I won't about my own company, or about companies the directly compete with it. The author's comment that "the contents are now being reviewed by the full team to further scrutiny the contents." is problematic - members of the LiquidO consortium should NOT have created their own page directly, and once it exists (assuming it is deemed notable), they should be using the Edit Request Template to request other editors make edits, rather than making them directly.

:The other policies I'd like to point out are WP:OR and WP:PSTS. Wikipedia is not the place to present original research, and primary sources, while somewhat unavoidable in very technical articles, need to be accompanied with at least some secondary coverage to establish notability. Adding additional secondary sources to this page would be the number one way to improve its chances of surviving AfD. Failure to establish notability (A8) per WP:GNG is the deletion criterion at issue here. PianoDan (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - While I have no reason to doubt the author's motives here are noble in wanting to share their research, the problem remains that this just simply isn't what wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that follows the academic consensus, and is committed to being exactly as wrong or out of date as the current consensus. Wikipedia is not an alternative path to recognition for serious academic work or a parallel path alongside broader academic recognition - it absolutely must follow other recognition. If this research is truly as impactful and important as the author believes, it will be cited by many reliable, academic, secondary sources, which will then likely be used by uninvolved parties to write an article about this topic. But as wikipedia is a tertiary source that is and must be written and maintained by editors who are not credentialed experts, it is absolutely necessary that all information be verifiable in secondary sources. This is why we can't just have an article written by a subject matter expert without independent, secondary source citations. People who are reading the encyclopedia need to be able to verify the information presented on any wiki page without having to contact the author or rely on any trust that the information is correct.

:This is entirely separate from the conflict of interest concerns, which are certainly also serious here, but those do not even need to be considered until it's established in secondary literature that this research is important and impactful. I appreciate that a lot of effort must have gone into drafting this page, but quite frankly there's no salvaging this contribution here whatsoever. I would recommend that the author, and the consortium they represent, invest time in the future into making sure that the avenues they pursue for spreading their research are appropriate and receptive, before they invest time and effort into how they will present their research. This is a useful lesson I have learned extensively outside of wikipedia in the corporate world: first sell the meeting, not the business. A lot of effort could have been saved here if the consortium had invested the time into making sure their work was aligned with wikipedia policies before spending so much time on writing this page. I am not sure if there was a disconnect here on the wikimedia side, but a fuller understanding of wikipedia policies by the consortium could have easily prevented this: while we don't assume familiarity of policies for all new editors, as this contribution is from a large professional organization, it seems that more initial legwork ought to have been done here. To the author: I would personally recommend that when you do find an alternative front for presenting this research, perhaps at academic conferences or when submitting review papers, or when you approach investors to make your technology marketable, that you take this advice into consideration. This will likely increase the chances that this research will one day be well-cited and verifiable enough to be included on Wikipedia. - car chasm (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delete Wrong venue. scope_creep^Talk 10:39, 5 April 2022 (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.