Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamma boron discovery controversy


 * 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.  Jamie ☆ S93  18:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Gamma boron discovery controversy
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Despite thorough attempts by several editors and professional scientists in this field, no reliable sources could be found confirming the stated controversy exists or existed (see discussion page for details NIMSoffice (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify: NIMSOffice (now renamed into Materialscientist for inappropriate use of the institutional name(NIMS is an institute in Japan)) nominates this page for deletion, because he is directly involved in this controversy. I am also directly involved in the story. The controversy page has been started by independent Wiki-editors (not by me and not by NIMSOffice) who found controversy existent and important. In this controversy, our side has presented solid evidence that the discovery of the new crystal strucure was made by us, and the other side (to which NIMSOffice is directly related, being their long-time collaborator) plagiarized our work. The side supported by NIMSOffice failed to present any contrary evidence, and now NIMSOffice insists on deletion. I suggest to keep the page, which has involved so much independent effort and now has our documentary evidence. Instead, I suggest to delete NIMSOffice's account - this person misuses anonymity. BTW, I and my colleagues found the identity of NIMSOffice and we can prove his long-time connections to Dubrovinskaia (the other side in the dispute) and rather dark role that NIMSOffice played in publishing their work (NIMSOffice is an editor of the journal where their paper appeared, in shortest time and in spite of referees' rejection!). Generally pages like that are useful in that they bring awareness of the complexity of the discovery process, and may help to establish the actual facts on important scientific discoveries. We need such pages. Artem R. Oganov 16:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoganov (talk • contribs)
 * From what I can tell, NIMSOffice/Materialscientist is an experienced contributor to Wikipedia who is in good standing. Without judging edits made to gamma boron related topics either way, other edits made by this user seem to have been constructive improvements to the encyclopedia, IMO. I therefore find it highly uncivil to suggest deletion of this account. Further, your statement "I and my colleagues found the identity of NIMSOffice and we can prove his long-time connections to Dubrovinskaia" sounds like a threat of outing; outing the real world identity of a Wikipedian against their will is expressly against our policy and is a blockable offense. See Harassment. So please keep your specific suspicions to yourself. --mav (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)~
 * You are right that NIMSOffice/Materialscientist is an experienced editor. I don't know how good or objective his other edits are. In the case of boron his edits are demonstrably biased and it is easy to demonstrate that he is biased on purpose. I mentioned that I know his identity for a simple reason - WP-administrators can check his identity and contact me (if my conclusion about this person is correct, then this person is directly involved in this controversy, in spite of his claims of the opposite). I am not threatening NIMSOffice at all, but I do want his behavior to be investigated. This is why I explained the story and his involvement in it. Aoganov (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please understand that in all discussions on WP, behind a user name there is a real person, who might get hurt by your comments. The sensitivity threshold of that person is unpredictable, and thus you might notice that experienced editors and administrators try to be polite in disputes. However, just for example, calling an opponent a biased, incompetent coward who should be banned from WP for this, would be taken as offense by most people and therefore is discouraged on WP. You might know a related example from "real world" - bullying over internet or mobile phones. It is usually anonymous but can lead to serious consequences and therefore is treated with extreme attention.Materialscientist (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No reliable secondary sources demonstrate existence of controversy. Only primary sources maintained by Aoganov. NYTimes, etc. don't mention any "controversy". Article's existence due to attempts to "right a great wrong" from dispute that spilled over from Talk:Boron. Scientific content now at new neutrally-titled Allotropes of boron to meet initial concerns over deletion on talk page. Perhaps Aoganov can get some reliable secondary sources to notably document his concerns, but, until then, the page does not meet our notability guideline (this point is understood by Aoganov). Perhaps Materialscientist (same user as NIMSOffice) should have mentioned they were involved in the edit conflicts at Boron, and thus may also have a "vested interest" in this content. Nonetheless, this article was patiently waiting for a deletion proposal from anyone as it fails our notability guideline. -Shootbamboo (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Take the statements about Materialscientist by Aoganov with a pinch of salt. Aoganov thinks that Materialscientist is a particular person in real life, and has taken to stating it as fact, but the latter has, to my knowledge, never stated xyr name nor claimed any involvement in the purported external dispute on either side (and in fact asserts that xyr only involvement here is as a Wikipedia editor interested in materials science topics). Harassment supports Materialscientist's tacit refusal to become embroiled in a discussion, instigated by another editor, of who xe may or may not be, note. Uncle G (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don’t delete – controversy exists and has reliable secondary sources. A number of sources are already mentioned on Gamma boron discovery controversy page. Operating only with public materials, i.e. reliable secondary sources: Oganov and colleagues made at least 8 presentations of their findings at conferences since early 2007, including the high-profile IUCr meeting in August 2008, where they announced the discovery of a new phase of boron and its unique crystal structure . These results were later published as a full article in Nature The IUCr conference was attended by Dubrovinsky and his colleagues (see the abstract of their talk at the same meeting as a proof http://journals.iucr.org/a/issues/2008/a1/00/a38473/a38473.pdf). Later, Dubrovinsky and colleagues published papers on boron, which did not mention that they are familiar with results of Oganov et al. Dubrovinsky et al. called this phase “new” (in spite of the earlier work by Oganov et al.) . See also presentation of Zarechnaya and Dubrovinsky called “New HPHT phase of boron” http://www.psi-k.org/newsletters/News_90/newsletter_90.pdf Also see Editorial Preface (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1468-6996/9/4/040301), stating that Zarechnaya-Dubrovinskaia work reported on novel phase of boron. This is at the heart of present controversy. Aoganov (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally have no doubt that you are who you say you are and feel that your work has not received proper credit by Dubrovinsky et al. But are there reliable independent sources that document a controversy itself (extrapolating a controversy by noting inconsistencies in reliable sources and submittal/publication timing is different)? If not, then this does not satisfy the verifiability requirements of Wikipedia, IMO. Wikipedia is not a place to document such a controversy for the first time. It must first be documented somewhere else that is both reliable and has independent editorial control (even if the external article about the controversy were written by one or the other party in the dispute). Facts can and should be cited in allotropes of boron and boron from published papers by both groups and inconsistencies mentioned as needed to improve the article, though. --mav (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure - if you just read above, you will see that Dubrovinskaia herself, and the editor of the issue where her paper was published, claimed that they found a novel phase and its structure. In reality, this was found by us. Dubrovinskaia's paper and Editorial article are reliable secondary sources. Aoganov (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I did notice that but a notable controversy per our policy (please, do not take offense at that statement: I understand that this most certainly is a very notable thing for you) only exists when the conflict itself is documented by reliable sources (that is, articles or papers about the conflict/controversy itself; competing claims to discovery are different unless two or more groups continue to maintain their competing claims). Even then, the controversy may only be notable enough (again, per our policy) for a short mention in allotropes of boron or perhaps boron. So far, I'm unconvinced that this is notable or verifiable enough for an entire article on the subject. Again, this is per our policy on inclusion and should not be taken as diminishing your group's excellent work on uncovering this most fascinating allotrope of boron. --mav (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I reviewed the article and the sources, and I believe this falls under WP:OR. Based on the responses above, I believe the author of the article does not fully understand what WP:OR is, and should also consult WP:COI. None of the article talk about a controversy. The author is formulating a controversy through original research. Since they are the one trying to create the controversy, conflict of interest is definitely present. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Article reads as complete original research. I could not find a source indicating any notable controversy as asserted in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This description of a priority dispute is WP:OR and unsuitable for wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clear WP:OR WP:SOAPboxing by the articles author seeking to promulgate his claims of plagarism Mayalld (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2009 (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.