Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decibel Therapeutics


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Decibel Therapeutics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page is apparently part of a social experiment on Wikipedians. See User:Marinamano/subpage User admits an undisclosed conflict of interest. Mduvekot (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment It is a student assignment, not a social experiment. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's both. The assignment was to study the behavior of supposedly hostile Wikipedians towards newcomers. Note that the essay specifically highlights our behavioral guideline on welcoming newcomers, but fails to mention our policy on verifiability. Their purpose was not to make a contribution but to study our adherence to our guidelines and to do so without giving full disclosure intentions and methodology, and without gaining our consent. I offered to help fix the problems with this article, but found that never responded to my offer, but now do acknowledge that they received it while avoiding mentioning me directly. I only noticed the post because I found many similar pages by other participants in the course while I looked at their contributions. Should they have been interested in addressing the issues with this article, they could have accepted my offer. By implicitly declining my offer, they have acknowledged that they are not interested in improving the article. This article has no realistic chance of ever being improved and should be deleted. Mduvekot (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting observations, I stand corrected. Also see the syllabus. In light of the COI issues and weak notability I was planning on !voting delete anyway, but this solidifies it. I have no idea what the proper process to go through for human subjects "research" on WP users is (not that one user's experience is anywhere near a representative sample), but doing it in this manner just doesn't seem right. All of the pages created for this course should probably be looked at – Train2104 (t • c) 19:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * delete Fails GNG by a mile.  Please don't waste your time figuring out where this came from; the class has already wasted a ton of the community's time.    Please just deal with this article here. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 7 April 201
 * delete : I proposed deletion before and it hasn't improved; it is a conflicted construction for an entity that fails WP:GNG. - Bri (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you mean to !vote delete, could you please do so below? I'm afraid it might be missed. - Bri (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of notability and COI issues. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:N, WP:NOTWEBHOST &mdash;  User A   07:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:44, 13 April 2017 (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.