Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DLight1


 * 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

DLight1

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Very very much WP:TOOSOON. The structure is so new that there is exactly one publication even mentioning it (Patriarchi et al. 2018)(the other references in the article are on ancillary topics). Uptake, coverage and general notability are nowhere near requirements at this point. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Elmidae. However, I think it differently. The fact that the article describing the introduction of dLight was published last month, makes it very recent, but certainly not insignificant to the point that it does not deserve being mentioned on Wikipedia. Uptake, coverage and general notability of the topic are outstanding with respect to its recent introduction: for verification of this you can look at the Altmetric scores of the article (Patriarchi et al. 2018), which is currently 264. In scholarly and scientific publishing, altmetrics are non-traditional bibliometrics proposed as an alternative or complement to more traditional citation impact metrics, such as impact factor and h-index. A score of 264, sets the article describing dLight in the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric. I would say that speaks out for its uptake, coverage and general notability. -- Tpatriarchi (talk · contribs) 09:26, 1 July 2018 (PST) Tpatriarchi (talk · contribs) 09:26, 1 July 2018 (PST)


 * I'm sorry, but looking at the metrics, I don't see the kind of coverage that is required for a Wikipedia article subject. Picked up by two news outlets, blogged twice, tweeted a couple hundred times - that's not widespread, in-depth coverage. The study hasn't even been cited in another article yet. What we do here is tertiary coverage: we summarize what others (secondary sources) have said about a subject. The subject being this research finding, we require that secondary sources (news articles, other papers) must have done their thing first. That hasn't happened here yet. WP is not the platform to give exposure to these findings, it is the platform to report on findings that have received exposure. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand your general point. However i personally consider the two news outlets that publicly introduce and discuss the article as verifiable secondary sources. If you have proof to discredit my claim, please provide it. What it all comes down to is: are there exact requirements for the notability of a subject before it can be picked up on a Wikipedia page? If there is not a specifc rule or a threshold number of secondary sources, then i still believe my article meets the criteria for being published in Wikipedia. -- Tpatriarchi (talk · contribs) 10:48, 1 July 2018 (PST)
 * There is no codified set of requirements for findings of scientific research in particular; the general notability guidelines apply. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 11:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Currently the article looks very much like a university/reearcher press release, with unnecessary mention of the reseearchers, and unwarranted speculation or similar research. If it was pruned back there may still be a stub with encyclopedic content. I am checking if the two news outlets are independent enough to count for WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * delete after checking, these extra sources are churnalism, just printing the press release. GNG is not achieved.. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- &#8237;  10 Eleventeen 23:16, 6 July 2018 (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.