Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Behavioral Signals

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Behavioral Signals

[edit]
Draft:Behavioral Signals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Repeatedly rejected at AfC on an arguably non-notable topic. Seems pretty promotional. Seeking deletion based on the rejections - but if we can't get deletion at MfD it will be sent to mainspace on the basis the reviewers were wrong. Legacypac (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete; do not mainspace either. Looks like it should be notable. ... very disappointed to hunt down the parent organisation SAIL to discover it is a small academic group unrelated to the notable Stanford_Artificial_Intelligence_Laboratory. Academic scientific stuff usually gets an easier run on Wikipedia, but they still have to stay very clear of NOTPRIMOTION. The draft has surely I think been written by someone with a conflict of interest. The article lacks references from independent commentators. At AfD I would !vote “draftify”. Give it six months (G13) in draftspace for someone to find independent sourced comment. 08:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)~
  • Do not delete or send to mainspace. I'm not your typical contributor in here but I would suggest not deleting this page but allowing others to contribute. I have been following this specific sentiment recognition AI field and especially now that voice control is gaining momentum from Google's breakthroughs(Duplex) I believe it is a notable topic. SAIL is one of a few laboratories doing research on emotion recognition directly (and only) from voice and not speech-to-text; this company is a spin-off from this lab. I vote “draftify” and let someone add independent sources. Talos22 (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)~[reply]

Page has been a draft since Feb 2018 already. If someone can fix it, by all means go for it. Legacypac (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to avoid a non-decision. If required we will deturmine notability in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked for this before. Your stated intention is to damage mainspace. The remedy to this is to block you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very inappropriate comment to make and not true on all points. The idea of testing pages in mainspace is hardly new or unique to me. User:DGG How would putting a marginally notable page in mainspace be any more damaging then the thousand s of unnotable pages that have existed for years or the scores of new pages created every week that get deleted? Legacypac (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Legacypac - It seems to me, and I think that I am neutral, that the comment of User:SmokeyJoe, while not exactly accurate, is a reasonable response to your bizarre and extreme proposal. Legacypac has not stated an intention to damage mainspace, but has stated a plan that a neutral editor can see runs the risk of damaging mainspace. (As DGG says, that risk is heavily mitigated by the fact that the page is so obviously not ready for mainspace that it will be thrown out of mainspace, and it might be draftified, as in we, AFC and MFD, might get told that it is our problem after all.) The issue is not just that this page is marginal as to notability, but that it is also non-neutral, the work of flacks. Just because it doesn't qualify for G11 doesn't mean that it is any good. User:Legacypac - User:SmokeyJoe has told you that if you throw your toys out of the pram, you may have to cry for a while before you get them back. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My assessment, if push comes to shove, is that this is not notable, certainly the existing sources do not demonstrate notability, the critical failing being a lack of independent sources. No issue with reliability. Independent sources could exist, now or soon, and I would like to let it have six months. However, if as per Robert McClenon, seven days it all it gets, then "delete" must be the outcome. My preference would be to leave it in draftspace, but to have it boldly moved to mainspace, that is damage and disruption to mainspace. WP:BOLD does not countenance doing something that you have been told is a bad idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment - Yes, this is using deletion as a sanction for a conduct issue, but there are no effective conduct sanctions for promotion unless it involves sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since I was asked, I would however not say that moving it to mainspace is damaging, just inappropriate and useless: Here's why: It is not at present ready for an article. It should not be moved to main space as it is not likely to be kept there and that is the criterion. If brought there, it would surely be sent to AfD, and the logical close there would be to draftify it, so moving it there makes no sense whatsoever. We do delete articles that have been repeatedly resubmitted without improvement, but often we wait for more than 3 declines unless it's clearly hopeless. But this draft is not hopeless. It might be notable, as the most recent information given is 2016, amd this is two years further on. Promotionalism is grounds for rejection even at AfC, but the standard for Draft is deliberately not as strict as it properly is for articles at AfD. This is not hopelessly or inherently promotional to the extent that we have normally deleted a draft for that reason.
I do support moving drafts of unclear notability to mainspace for a proper discussion,and I have done so myself. But that's when it's unclear, as for a type of article where there are no consistent practices, or where it requires attention from people who might have some subject knowledge . That's not the case here: this is a routine attemept at an article that we should deal with in the routine way. We have enough problems in dealing properly with drafts without trying to make the procedures even more intricate or circular. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think damaging, damaging to mainspace and the project, because it will cost volunteer time to deal with it, and unjustified damage as no one supports mainspacing it. Small damage perhaps, but non-zero cost. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
that's much too general and applies to a great many things. The trouble dealing with it at all is not worth the benefit. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was my point. I have removed the saccharine encouragement to resubmit, given advice, and am watching. Leave it to G13 if they can’t find independent sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the draft, for now at least. I agree with DGG. Draft space is always going to be more permissive than mainspace, and AfD is not bad at dealing with genuine crap. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 15 May 2018 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Behavioral_Signals&oldid=1074085975"