Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BioHazard (2nd nomination)


 * 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 was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

BioHazard
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Zero citations in the article to demonstrate notability Nightscream (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, per above. The first deletion discussion ended after three editors asserted it was notable, and one did not. That is hardly representative of the consensus of the editing community. One of those editors claimed the sunbect was "Evidently notable. The rest is cleanup which is not a matter for AFD." The link does not direct to any sources that mention the subject, and the problems with this stub are not merely ones of cleanup. Articles on Wikipedia have to demonstrate why the subject is notable. You can't just "declare" in an AfD that something is "evidently" notable and leave it at that. Those who created the article -- or who otherwise favor keeping -- need to step up to the plate and do some work to make the article passable by WP:NOTE. None of the three editors who insisted that this topic was notable bothered to do any of the work in this regard, and that discussion ended over 13 years ago. This is absurd. Let's meet halfway: People like me who insist that at least two or three reliable, secondary sources need to be in the article should be willing to give some time the inclusionists, and they should roll up their sleeves do some work to get the article up to WP standards. Perching oneself on an AfD pedestal and decreeing that well, someone needs to do cleanup, only for no one to do so after 13 years, is not the way to produce good articles. Either those who favor this article should do the work to wikify it, or it needs to be deleted. Period. Insisting on keeping it, and then leaving it like this just plain hypocritical, and is a way to treat this project with contempt. Nightscream (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 3.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 18:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've just added seven sources about this bot.  If anyone wants to expand the article with technical specifications, then I particularly recommend the Design News article.  That article, plus 17 others about this bot, are available via ProQuest to any editor who has gotten their Wikipedia Library Card.  Just login, click on the ProQuest link, and put   into the search field to find them.  You'll get 19 results, and 18 of them are about this robot.  Also, I think that the May 2006 issue of SERVO Magazine includes some information about this robot.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further discussion about sources that specifically go towards meeting notability guidelines may help develop consensus.
 * Comment @ per WP:BEFORE C.1. "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." the current state of the sources on the article is not a criteria for deletion, Jeepday (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep My google book search (BioHazard battlebots -wikipedia) found lots of references easily meets WP:GNG plus the references added to the article by clearly a keeper. Jeepday (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH21talk 21:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @MarkH21, are you looking for a statement that says something like "The Los Angeles Times is a national newspaper that published hundreds of words about this subject, which obviously shows notability" or "Wired (magazine) is listed as generally reliable at WP:RSP, and it ran a three-thousand-word-long story about this subject in general and 500 words specifically about this device, which is definitely SIGCOV"? If that's the kind of information you need, then you could have just looked at the sources... WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I just meant that as a suggestion for other editors/comments after the relist. It wasn't the reason for the relist, which principally was that further participation & discussion may help develop a clearer consensus. — MarkH21talk 19:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @MarkH21, I think the consensus actually is clear: For better or worse, the subject is notable.  The nom didn't see any sources in the article, and it's not an "obvious" subject.  Even someone doing a proper BEFORE-style source might not happen to look in the "right" place, especially with such a generic subject name, and I didn't expect to find this much detail myself.  But lots of reliable sources clearly do exist, and that means we're done here.  It simply wouldn't be credible now for editors to claim that this subject doesn't pass the GNG standards.  I think that re-listing is wasting people's time.  We use re-listing when there is a real chance that the outcome could go the other way.  There is no real chance of that now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not so clear-cut. There are two editors !voting keep and one !voting delete, with new sources having been brought up at the very end of the discussion period. One of the keep !votes does not mention any notability guidelines, both keep !votes do not say if there is actually significant coverage, and the delete !voter did not consider the sources brought up the day before the end of the 7-day period. To me, that makes up a discussion with few participants that could benefit from more specific guideline-based arguments and therefore is appropriate for WP:RELIST.To expand on the above, the delete !vote only says that there is no RS coverage presented (as well as a non-guideline cleanup-based argument). Similarly, your comment pre-relist says that there exist 18 sources with technical specifications of this robot, not that there is significant coverage in them. It's up to editors in the discussion to decide whether the subject satisfies a guideline; for example, whether the few mentions of this robot in the LA Times article is actually significant coverage towards GNG. It's not for a potential closer to examine the 18 sources themselves and decide based on that whether a guideline has been met. — MarkH21talk 19:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty clear to me. The only delete vote is from the nominator, who's argument is not consistent with policy, as I point out in my comment at 17:20, 9 April 2021 (line separate from my vote) and two keep votes. Looks like a clear close as keep to me, alternately it could be closed as non-consensus (though I don't see that) in either case the closure is not going to be delete.  Jeepday (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well sourced enough. XavierItzm (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Change my position to Keep The sources that WhatamIdoing added to the article definitely bring it in line with Wikipedia policy, at least apparently. Many thanks to him for actually being willing to roll up his/her sleeves and do that work, instead of just sitting on the sidelines. Nightscream (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.