 | This page was proposed for deletion by Ldm1954 (talk · contribs) on 28 April 2025. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Moving to draft?
The message below was posted by Lasourisrose on his talk page; it belongs here for the response:
- Thank you for your message @Ldm1954.
- Can you transform the article to Draft?
- This would allow me to improve it without losing the content.
- Best, Lasourisrose (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Lasourisrose, unfortunately I cannot draftify it. There is a 90 day rule, and after that only an admin can move it to draft, and they would need a strong reason to.
- While I think the page is very problematic, as do others @Reconrabbit, Belbury, and Onel5969:, Kvng contested a speedy deletion, and Dclemens1971 claims that the topic is notable but has severe WP:OR problems. Even though you created the page, you do not own it -- please read WP:OWN. If everyone ping'd here agrees then you could ask for it to be draftified.
- This is not a topic that I know much about, so I am not going to repair it. Maybe editors @Dclemens1971 and Kvng: who consider it to be notable will. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Ldm1954 (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Lasourisrose, let me know what I can do to help with improvements. ~Kvng (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- I am mildly familiar with this discipline from my professional life, and my WP:BEFORE search turned up the Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science, The Surprising Science of Meetings, plus journal articles (, ) -- this is sufficient WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources, so there is no way this topic would not be kept at an AfD discussion. Several sections lack sourcing and appear to be original research, but may not be if secondary sources are introduced for the claims. Unfortunately, since much of the article appears to be LLM-generated, it's in an uncanny valley where it can't be deleted due to the subject's notability, but this content can't really be kept as is. @Lasourisrose, if you'd like to to be draftified, I would support a "draftify" outcome should the article be nominated an Articles for Deletion discussion. @Kvng @Reconrabbit @Belbury @Onel5969 @Ldm1954, if this went to AfD, would you support draftification as well? Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- I would. Onel5969 TT me 01:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Dclemens1971 no I don't support draftification. Improvements are unlikely to happen in draft and then it will get G13ed. If you don't think it should be in mainspace, make your case at AFD. ~Kvng (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- In this case the page creator is asking to draftify it... that seems like a better chance than usual draftspace will lead to improvements. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Dclemens1971 Yes but still less than if it is in mainspace IMO ~Kvng (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- Just trying to respond to the page creator's request for draftification. Not planning to AfD it otherwise. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Dclemens1971, if the page creator requested the article be deleted, I don't think we would honor that request. I appreciate you trying to help though. ~Kvng (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- Just trying to respond to the page creator's request for draftification. Not planning to AfD it otherwise. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Dclemens1971 Yes but still less than if it is in mainspace IMO ~Kvng (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- In this case the page creator is asking to draftify it... that seems like a better chance than usual draftspace will lead to improvements. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- Even with those sources, an AfD could decide to merge the content with the meeting article. The fact that it's possible to write a 1000-word "science of" article (which an LLM can do effortlessly for any subject) doesn't mean that we need one. Belbury (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hey, thank you for your messages, I am glad to see different points of view and opinions here!
- Thanks for your support @Ldm1954, @Dclemens1971, @Onel5969 and @Kvng regarding notability and sources, I tried to do my best!
- I don't really get all these Wikipedia names and processes (draftification, AfD...) I would just like to edit the article in order to improve it according to Wikipedia guidelines and without losing the content, because having a base is a big plus.
- @Kvng: I tried to explain the origins of the discipline, in general, and then by country. I also wanted to list the study areas and methods of the discipline and the context (where does it happen). What is missing or lacking? I don't really know... I understand that the structure and tone are not appropriate for Wikipedia but where exactly?
- I repeat: this article was not written by AI, I spent a lot of time writing it and I used ChatGPT to correct the grammar, just because it is the most accurate free tool to do so today. I understand that this was a huge mistake, and I understand that I am not the owner of this article.
- @Belbury Yes, I agree. Just because it is possible to write a 1000-word article for "Science of Pig Farming" doesn't mean that we need one. The main difference here is that the concept has been proposed to the world by one of the oldest research institutions: The University of Cambridge, founded in 1209, I am not the creator of the concept. Lasourisrose (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Lasourisrose Here's my view: Go ahead and edit the article now, where it is. Get it fixed up. Just because it's in mainspace doesn't mean it cannot be fixed. It can and should be fixed! Please focus on removing the language where you used ChatGPT to correct your grammar. That was probably a mistake because ChatGPT has a particular tone that signals an article was written by an LLM, and it will call your work into question if you're using it. I do not think your article is at risk of being deleted because the topic is notable, so go ahead and fix it up where it is. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- I am mildly familiar with this discipline from my professional life, and my WP:BEFORE search turned up the Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science, The Surprising Science of Meetings, plus journal articles (, ) -- this is sufficient WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources, so there is no way this topic would not be kept at an AfD discussion. Several sections lack sourcing and appear to be original research, but may not be if secondary sources are introduced for the claims. Unfortunately, since much of the article appears to be LLM-generated, it's in an uncanny valley where it can't be deleted due to the subject's notability, but this content can't really be kept as is. @Lasourisrose, if you'd like to to be draftified, I would support a "draftify" outcome should the article be nominated an Articles for Deletion discussion. @Kvng @Reconrabbit @Belbury @Onel5969 @Ldm1954, if this went to AfD, would you support draftification as well? Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)