Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Brain Laboratory


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

International Brain Laboratory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD removed with no valid explanation. Not enough references to meet the criteria for establishing notability. Existing reference is not intellectually independent as is largely based on PRIMARY sources, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing ++ 19:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The PROD was disruptive as it "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". The topic is obviously notable -- see Nature, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Please produce two (minimum required) references (intellectually independent) that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Your opinion that the topic is obviously notable is noted, but we need references. Posting a PROD is not disruptive especially in light of an article that has a  -- HighKing ++ 12:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The prod was removed with the edit summary "The Guardian say "combining expertise from 21 labs in Europe and the US, the International Brain Laboratory will attempt to answer one of the greatest mysteries of all time". Philafrenzy (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Exactly - no valid explanation. -- HighKing ++ 12:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficient sources. WP:Too soon, if ever. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC).
 * WP:Too soon is an essay, not policy. And it's about actors and films and so irrelevant. Andrew D. (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Rationale for deletion as offered by the nom does not seem valid. eg, seems to be claiming that an article in the Guardian is not a secondary source. Claims that the PROD was removed without a valid explanation, but offers no explanation of why the explanation (repeated above by Philafrenzy) is invalid. Yes, the article is a stub and needs to be expanded with more sources. That's not enough of a reason to delete this article barely a month after it was created. Finally, is it acceptable for the nominator to include a bold "delete" at the start of the nomination? It tends to create the visual impression of an extra delete vote, because no other AfD nominator does that, so far as I've seen. -- Gpc62 (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed the bolded delete, the nomination is sufficient. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I find sufficient reliable sources discussing this international project to demonstrate notability. Meets WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think The Guardian and Nature together provide splashy enough coverage in both mainstream media and the scientific literature to pass WP:GNG. And the nomination statement is deficient as all secondary sources are based on primary sources; that's what makes them secondary. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not actually what was said or meant when referring to PRIMARY, but I can understand why my statement might be misinterpreted. I hoped my reference to CORPDEPTH ("quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources") and ORGIND ("other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people") would be enough without clipping the precise part of each. My bad. -- HighKing ++ 13:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Both the IBL and the Simons Foundation and the Wellcome Trust released press releases on 19th September 2017 which coincides with the press articles. Clearly this shows that the article are based on information provided by the IBL and therefore fail WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing ++ 13:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: You'll have to show us more evidence than that to demonstrate that your claim is anything more than speculation. It is competely normal for legitimate, properly reported articles to appear in venues such as The Guardian and Nature shortly after press releases went out. That's the very nature of how the industry often works. The timing, by itself, demonstrates nothing. -- Gpc62 (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Well .... this announcement from Princeton University uses the exact same graphic as used in the Nature article. I'd say that pretty much shows that one is based on the other. Also, this PDF press release from the university of Geneva states WARNING: embargoed until 19th of September 2017, 00:00 GMT and indicates a press campaign around the launch. Finally, if this brand new organisation was truly notable, there should be other articles written that are not based on the announcement. -- HighKing ++ 11:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: You still haven't demonstrated anything of relevance. Of course Nature re-used the image. That alone proves nothing about the origins of the text content. Of course the organization had a press campaign. Do you understand how many science-related news stories routinely involve an embargoed press release? You're pointing at things that are completely routine and claiming they are somehow conclusive evidence that a news item published in Nature is thereby so tainted it shouldn't count as a secondary source. If this is the best you have, it just proves you have no case. -- Gpc62 (talk) 19:04, 28 October 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.