Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foresight Institute Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  06:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Foresight Institute Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This prize fails N; this is almost all sourced from SPS, and listing out all the winners sourced only from the website of the organization that gives it, just turns this Wikipedia page into a proxy for that organization, and this is not what WP is for, per WP:SOAP. Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. As of now, all of the article prose is supported by secondary sources, which support that this is one of the most prestigious and long-standing prizes in nanotechnology. The citation quotations are directly sourced from the Foresight Institute, as is the practice with other prize articles such as List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry.  I feel that the Wikipedia article does have value-added over the Foresight Insitute's own website, in that it provides direct links to biographies, freely licensed photographs, and the rationales all in one place.  Merging to Foresight Institute would be a second choice.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Antony-22, in this diff you wrote Okay, couldn't find any secondary sources about the communications and government prizes, so I'll axe these and deleted a bunch of content. The sourcing of that content is not different, from the bulk of this page listing the winners. Advocacy is skewing your judgement as a Wikipedian; this is alarming to me, and it should be to you, as a Wikipedian.  This is something you need to try to self-manage, and the best way to do that is to aim with sourcing, using independent, secondary sources as much as possible, and summarizing them. If you find yourself building sections based on SPS or primary sources, it is a good sign for you that your advocacy is at play and you should reel yourself back from that, so the community doesn't have to spend time on stuff like this discussion or the edit warring or COIN filing that preceded it.  Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The main prize as a whole has ample secondary sources: eight of them are cited in the article, and they range from mainstream technical news publications to peer-reviewed journal articles. These sources would be satisfactory for any other topic in my long experience. I looked for secondary sources for the other prizes and didn't find them, so I removed them. So I'm essentially agreeing with you on that. But my impression of consensus is that secondary sources are not required for award rationales; this is the practice at the Nobel Prize list articles, on which the format of this article is based. No, there isn't a secondary source for every individual awarding of the prize, but I don't think that's required by WP:N or WP:SELFPUB.  If this is wrong, then the required changes will go far beyond this article. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 15:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are the sources used in the body of the article:
 * #1 and #6 are SPS from the organization. Irrelevant for an N discussion:
 * #3 and #4 and #5 and #7 are churnalism based on press releases; #3 and #4 are based on the same press release, each discussing one specific awardee (this is actually classic reference padding, something that paid editors do all the time; paid and unpaid advocates edit the same way which is we why ask about COI. Use of multiple instances of the same story is discussed in Notability as well as WP:INDY)
 * #8 is the definition of "passing mention" and does not contribute to N. For those who cannot access the paywalled article, there are two sentences mentioning the prize: 1) "Eric Drexler and numerous followers, e.g. Merkle) proposed a more revolutionary approach towards nanotechnology. The Foresight Institute in its requirements for awarding the Feynman prize for two nanoscale devices epitomizes the vision of this branch of nanotechnology." and 2) "Furthermore, the Foresight Institute “manifesto” (i.e. requirements for the Feynman prize), although—to their merit—not restricted to solid state technology “solutions”, is extremely restrictive in terms of the treatment of noise."
 * #2 is very good, and #9 is meh. I found those as well when I did my BEFORE. In #2, a historian of science, Anne Marcovich, used these prizes as a lens through which to view the history and state of the field.  #9 is a long paragraph in a book by Marcovich, basically rehashing what she did in #2, so it isn't independent of #2 (sources should be independent of the subject and from one another - same issue as the two churnalism pieces off the same press release above).  btw I looked and found no connection between Marcovich and Foresight - these refs are both independent of Foresight as far as I can tell)
 * So what we have here is one kick-ass source that would be great for generating content in the Foresight page about this prize. The rest is not helpful toward notability.
 * btw, this is what I mean above, by allowing high quality, independent, secondary sources to drive content creation. Something someone who is an advocate should be especially careful to do. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I get it. I was going off of what I saw on other prize articles to gauge the consensus on sourcing, but I understand that sourcing requirements have become more strict over time, especially with the recent overhaul of the organizations notability guideline.  I was asked to add secondary sources and I did so in good faith expecting that that would solve the issues, but I admit that I misestimated how stringently other editors would approach the sourcing.   Nevertheless, as I've said before, I will accept whatever the outcome is of this AfD.
 * For the sake of explanation, I did avoid using verbatim copies of the Foresight Institute's press releases as sources, and I actually removed a few that another editor had added. I saw #3, #5, and #7 as original reporting independent of the press releases; in particular #3 is an entirely original radio interview by a mainstream media outlet.  And in #8 I see two full paragraphs about the Grand Prize, not two sentences—maybe still not substantial enough, but certainly more than a passing mention.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As of now, all of the article prose is supported by secondary sources Are you joking? With two exceptions, every citation from 15 to 38 is to the website of the organization in question. Yes, this is largely not, strictly speaking, "prose", but that's a clever word trick if it's what you meant; if almost none of our article's content (not "article prose") can be verified in reliable secondary sources, then that raises serious questions... Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Referring to the list portion of the article, it is now three exceptions (did you miss the Nature Nanotechnology one?), but there were others that were deleted because they were thought by Antony-22 to be unneeded. Again, should we delete the Featured List, List of Nobel laureates because ALL the sources come from Nobel? I was looking at an Oscar page and many of its sources came from the Academy, churnalism, or other non-independent sources. Is there some WP:??? which would clarify the guidelines for sources for award lists? If the list part was spun off into a "List", would that change the requirement? StrayBolt (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OSE: I've heard of the Nobel Prize, and you and your mother and her childhood dentist have as well; it is covered in millions of reliable sources, in quite a bit of depth, and honestly official sources are the best ones for who one what prize what year, given how much false information goes around about it because of how famous it is. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So we agree that having official primary sources are good, like this article has, for who won when, what and why. And the large number of refs are because FI has a page for each year (while Nobel has one page for them all). I(we) have added some secondary sources for various years of the award from a variety of source types. Doing it for every year seems like overkill. I am still looking for guidelines for sources for award lists. StrayBolt (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "So we agree" - this is you misconstruing someone's objection, and I must note that it comes across as deliberately disingenuous. If it were in good faith, it would indicate a huge disconnect from norms of discourse and ability to understand what other people are saying, and be a clear red flag that you are not up to the task of participating in discussions on Wikipedia. Which is it? - David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  Every morning   (there's a halo...)  05:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * btw, this is what I mean above, by allowing high quality, independent, secondary sources to drive content creation. Something someone who is an advocate should be especially careful to do. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I get it. I was going off of what I saw on other prize articles to gauge the consensus on sourcing, but I understand that sourcing requirements have become more strict over time, especially with the recent overhaul of the organizations notability guideline.  I was asked to add secondary sources and I did so in good faith expecting that that would solve the issues, but I admit that I misestimated how stringently other editors would approach the sourcing.   Nevertheless, as I've said before, I will accept whatever the outcome is of this AfD.
 * For the sake of explanation, I did avoid using verbatim copies of the Foresight Institute's press releases as sources, and I actually removed a few that another editor had added. I saw #3, #5, and #7 as original reporting independent of the press releases; in particular #3 is an entirely original radio interview by a mainstream media outlet.  And in #8 I see two full paragraphs about the Grand Prize, not two sentences—maybe still not substantial enough, but certainly more than a passing mention.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As of now, all of the article prose is supported by secondary sources Are you joking? With two exceptions, every citation from 15 to 38 is to the website of the organization in question. Yes, this is largely not, strictly speaking, "prose", but that's a clever word trick if it's what you meant; if almost none of our article's content (not "article prose") can be verified in reliable secondary sources, then that raises serious questions... Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Referring to the list portion of the article, it is now three exceptions (did you miss the Nature Nanotechnology one?), but there were others that were deleted because they were thought by Antony-22 to be unneeded. Again, should we delete the Featured List, List of Nobel laureates because ALL the sources come from Nobel? I was looking at an Oscar page and many of its sources came from the Academy, churnalism, or other non-independent sources. Is there some WP:??? which would clarify the guidelines for sources for award lists? If the list part was spun off into a "List", would that change the requirement? StrayBolt (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OSE: I've heard of the Nobel Prize, and you and your mother and her childhood dentist have as well; it is covered in millions of reliable sources, in quite a bit of depth, and honestly official sources are the best ones for who one what prize what year, given how much false information goes around about it because of how famous it is. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So we agree that having official primary sources are good, like this article has, for who won when, what and why. And the large number of refs are because FI has a page for each year (while Nobel has one page for them all). I(we) have added some secondary sources for various years of the award from a variety of source types. Doing it for every year seems like overkill. I am still looking for guidelines for sources for award lists. StrayBolt (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "So we agree" - this is you misconstruing someone's objection, and I must note that it comes across as deliberately disingenuous. If it were in good faith, it would indicate a huge disconnect from norms of discourse and ability to understand what other people are saying, and be a clear red flag that you are not up to the task of participating in discussions on Wikipedia. Which is it? - David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  Every morning   (there's a halo...)  05:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. the Foresight Institute is barely notable, if at all, and the sources for this award fail the test of intellectual independence. basically they are either the institute itself or pressreleases (churnalism). Guy (Help!) 09:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - no substantive sources that this prize has real-world notability. If this is "one of the most prestigious and long-standing prizes in nanotechnology", then you'd expect third-party coverage to be more than passing mentions. If you look through the article's history and talk page, it's all desperate attempts to puff up its importance, and that of the fringe science in question. Paid fringe advocates repeatedly removing tags from the article and its bad sources - rather than finding good sources, because the good sources don't exist - are an extremely bad sign as well. If there was notability and substance here, none of that would need to happen - David Gerard (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The Foresight Institute is notable. It is learned society like any other learned society, like universities, for example. It is not qualitatively or quantitatively different in substance, from a university like Cambridge University or something like the Royal College of Physicians. Different fields or subjects but same outcome, to advance mankind. The prize is not well known, which is unfortunate, as the Institute is at the bleeding edge of research, and as it has not directly benefited mankind yet, e.g. making nano machinery that will directly fix, e.g. arteriosclerosis, nobody is talking about it, so it not notable. scope_creep (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't think WP:SOAP is an issue for this article. By Jytdog's argument, we should delete the Featured List, List of Nobel laureates. Sources can be better or worse than others and there is a gray area due to independence, reputation,… so I probably add more than other editors. When a receiving organization reports winning the prize, even if it just repeating the press release, it is imparting information acknowledging receipt. For almost any award, most sources would say, "X won Y prize" and then go on talking about X and what X did. They might use some superlative for the prize. Puffery is easily fixed, usually by deleting the word in question. I have problems with David Gerard's accusations,"… it's all desperate attempts to puff up its importance, and that of the fringe science in question. Paid fringe advocates repeatedly removing tags…". For me it is: attempts to rescue with sources, of an evolving fringe science that is now more mainstream, and volunteer advocate of Wikipedia (not sure if I removed tags). I have added a couple more refs (SciAm, newspaper) and will try to find more. At worse, this article should be merged with Foresight Institute. StrayBolt (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. StrayBolt (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes a merger with Foresight is a reasonable outcome. It is definitely time to dissolve the "rescue" project. I will be filing an MfD shortly. This is the most blatant abuse of that project for canvassing that i have ever seen, I believe. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC) (strike for now Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC))
 * This is my first time listing an article on "rescue". What should I say so it isn't canvassing? I was summarizing the state and asking for help finding sources. I will post a correction. StrayBolt (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Think about your intention. It is 100% WP:CANVASS. Since you are not a regular there i have struck my note about MfD, for now.  Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I was asking for help finding more RS, if they exist. I recently found a couple more and had found #2 before. There seems to be many press releases, many variations of writing it, and many unrelated similar named items so it makes searching difficult. StrayBolt (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Read WP:CANVASS and do not try to bullshit the community. If you continue behaving this way you will end up with your editing privileges restricted. I am not going to reply here further to avoid cluttering this up. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Having come here because of your note on the canvassing board in question, I can say that your request "for help finding more RS" did not stand out at all as much as your claim to having already found several sources that "passed the critics", which regardless of your intent will be read by the ARS regulars similarly to how 1 John's intended readership would read "the world". Similarly, "satisfactorily" was an odd choice of words. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete It is absolutely non notable, and fails WP:SIGCOV and has to go the way of the dodo. scope_creep (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Leaning delete The diligent source-hunting that has apparently turned up nothing to write home about makes me think this subject probably fails GNG. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete & redirect to Foresight_Institute. Not independently notable and the parent article already provides sufficient information on the topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * we'll need to keep an eye on that to make sure there isn't just a huge cut'n'paste of this text into that - David Gerard (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 10:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Pinging all participants in Articles for deletion/Foresight Institute who haven't !voted yet. Feedback would be appreciated. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 10:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Good secondary sources. Notability is always going to be partly subjective and dimensional rather than categorical. But IMO the Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology makes the cut --Davidcpearce (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Despite the technically weak referencing, this appears to be the major prize in the subject. The references are good enough to support that, and that is the practical and appropriate criterion for notability of a prize. The general terms in the GNG substantial & independent need to  be interpreted with respect to what can be expected in the subject. The recent tightening of the requirements for them in WP:CORP is a reaction to the promotionalism in that subject area, and even in that area they  need to be used with reason. The purpose of the notability guidelines is to separate out what makes sense to include in an encyclopedia . They have no fundamental significance--where they are a good guide, they are useful.  DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Discussed some in textbooks and by universities. Could the current references be improved? Sure. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are a bunch more
 * This lists the prize under nanotechnology developments indicating it is fairly significant in the field.
 * Anyway fair number more are and Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * keep per Doc James rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:05, 19 May 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.