- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Frontier Radio
Non-notable project. This has been kicking around as a draft for almost two years with no substantial improvement. It keeps avoiding WP:G13 because of the occasional trivial update that resets the clock. The only three references that mention the subject at all are three papers presented at conferences by the lab that runs the project. My own searching failed to come up with anything better. Almost qualifies for WP:G11: "highly adaptable for the needs of any mission", "transceivers were incredibly successful", etc. The promotional language could be fixed, but the problem of no good sourcing remains. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Keep For now, I agree it doesn't have much independent coverage, but it does seem to be a key component in quite a few notable space probes. I'm going to reach out to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight and Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy for comment on this, as they may have better insight to the notability on this, meaning my vote is very open to change. Sulfurboy ( talk) 20:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Weak Keep agreeing with User:Sulfurboy. This is a draft, and a draft that gets tweaked every few months is a draft. No obvious reason to delete. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- The reason to delete is that nobody has done anything non-trivial to it in over a year and a half and it just keeps sucking up reviewers time. Even if there's no review logged in the history, people who patrol the old drafts queues have to spend time reading enough of it to decide if they want to dig in deeper. That's a time sink, and editor time is the most valuable commodity we've got. And, of course, this MFD has pushed the G13 clock out another month. Actually, at the point
this edit was made, it was G13 elibible, but
this bot edit apparently misled the G13 automation into thinking a human had done something during the time span. --
RoySmith
(talk)
14:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Just as a note, Rich is not a bot, despite editing like one. So yes, his editing would reset the counter.
Primefac (
talk)
14:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not saying Rich is a bot. I'm saying User:CommonsDelinker is a bot. Previous to Rich's edit, the most recent human edit was the one by ProgrammingGeek on 2018-11-01. Six months from that is 2019-05-01 (plus or minus how "6 months" is computed). What I'm saying is that at the point Rich made his (human) edit on 2019-05-18, this was already 17-ish days past the G13 deadline, but it appears that the CommonsDelinker edit reset the clock. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Just as a note, Rich is not a bot, despite editing like one. So yes, his editing would reset the counter.
Primefac (
talk)
14:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- The reason to delete is that nobody has done anything non-trivial to it in over a year and a half and it just keeps sucking up reviewers time. Even if there's no review logged in the history, people who patrol the old drafts queues have to spend time reading enough of it to decide if they want to dig in deeper. That's a time sink, and editor time is the most valuable commodity we've got. And, of course, this MFD has pushed the G13 clock out another month. Actually, at the point
this edit was made, it was G13 elibible, but
this bot edit apparently misled the G13 automation into thinking a human had done something during the time span. --
RoySmith
(talk)
14:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Delete since there were no human edits for six months, so that it was spared from G13 by a bot. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. It is written like a manual. It is all primary source material. The author does not understand that encyclopedic articles are based on secondary sources, sources that comment on primary source material. This is a common newcomer mistake, and is a reason why newcomers should not try to write new pages before getting experience improving existing content. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- This draft is so hopeless that minimally it should be deleted per WP:TNT, allowing anyone to start again. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep I found more sources, but most are published by members of the lab. However, we do source a lot of our NASA spacecraft and spacecraft components articles to NASA sources. It would be different if the information was self published on their website (maybe), but they are getting published in reputable journals. If this passes as keep, send it to main space, ping me, and I will run through and cleanup the article. I saw an instance of " ,issions ", it needs DAB cleanup, toning down of the promotionalness, section headers need sentence case..etc.
Kees08
(Talk)
16:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- eoPortal (has citations at the bottom of page too)
- Oscillator Sources for a DORIS Satellite SDR Receiver System
- Demonstrating TRL-6 on the JHU/APL Frontier Radio for the Radiation Belt Storm Probe mission
- Spacecraft-level verification of the Van Allen Probes' RF communication system
- Van Allen Probes / former RBSP Mission
- Keep. A major project, with sfficient references. In fact, Iwas planning to accept it. Please add the additional ones, and let me know on my talk page. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Please see Grey literature, below. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Grey literature
|
|---|
|
The references for this draft article fall under the category of grey literature, referred to as white and grey literature in the essay, Identifying reliable sources (science). That essay notes: "These papers are typically not peer reviewed in the traditional sense, but may nonetheless provide accurate and accessible information. When assessing the suitability of such a source, consider the reputation of the publishing organization, the reliability and proper use of the sources cited, and how the source is in turn cited or discussed by the relevant academic community." reputation of the publishing organization - Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers is a professional association that publishes several peer reviewed journals and conference proceedings. We have an unassessed article on the first reference's conference— IEEE MTT-S International Microwave Symposium—although it has a multiple issues tag, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (June 2012) [and] This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (June 2012)" reliability and proper use of the sources cited - I'm not sure what "proper use" means, and I don't know of a way to assess the reliability of non-peer-reviewed conference proceeding reports, other than to assume they do not meet WP:RS standards until proven otherwise. how the source is in turn cited or discussed by the relevant academic community - I searched the Astrophysics Data System for the doi and title of reference #1 of the draft article, but neither search returned any results. I search for referred publications by Michael O'Neill, the first author of reference numbers 1, 2, and 3, but the results did not uncover anything similar to the conference proceeding published in a refereed source. (In my experience, "refereed" is usually synonymous with "peer-reviewed", but definitions vary to some extent). Searching for the title of the first citation on Google Scholar, indicates that it has been cited one time in:
which is citation #3 in the draft article and by the same lead author. That doesn't mean the information is useless, and if the draft article cited peer-reviewed journal articles, grey literature like these conference proceeding reports might provide valuable supplemental information. But they are not reliable sources by themselves. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:27, 15 April 2020 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Frontier Radio
Non-notable project. This has been kicking around as a draft for almost two years with no substantial improvement. It keeps avoiding WP:G13 because of the occasional trivial update that resets the clock. The only three references that mention the subject at all are three papers presented at conferences by the lab that runs the project. My own searching failed to come up with anything better. Almost qualifies for WP:G11: "highly adaptable for the needs of any mission", "transceivers were incredibly successful", etc. The promotional language could be fixed, but the problem of no good sourcing remains. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Keep For now, I agree it doesn't have much independent coverage, but it does seem to be a key component in quite a few notable space probes. I'm going to reach out to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight and Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy for comment on this, as they may have better insight to the notability on this, meaning my vote is very open to change. Sulfurboy ( talk) 20:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Weak Keep agreeing with User:Sulfurboy. This is a draft, and a draft that gets tweaked every few months is a draft. No obvious reason to delete. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- The reason to delete is that nobody has done anything non-trivial to it in over a year and a half and it just keeps sucking up reviewers time. Even if there's no review logged in the history, people who patrol the old drafts queues have to spend time reading enough of it to decide if they want to dig in deeper. That's a time sink, and editor time is the most valuable commodity we've got. And, of course, this MFD has pushed the G13 clock out another month. Actually, at the point
this edit was made, it was G13 elibible, but
this bot edit apparently misled the G13 automation into thinking a human had done something during the time span. --
RoySmith
(talk)
14:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Just as a note, Rich is not a bot, despite editing like one. So yes, his editing would reset the counter.
Primefac (
talk)
14:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not saying Rich is a bot. I'm saying User:CommonsDelinker is a bot. Previous to Rich's edit, the most recent human edit was the one by ProgrammingGeek on 2018-11-01. Six months from that is 2019-05-01 (plus or minus how "6 months" is computed). What I'm saying is that at the point Rich made his (human) edit on 2019-05-18, this was already 17-ish days past the G13 deadline, but it appears that the CommonsDelinker edit reset the clock. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Just as a note, Rich is not a bot, despite editing like one. So yes, his editing would reset the counter.
Primefac (
talk)
14:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- The reason to delete is that nobody has done anything non-trivial to it in over a year and a half and it just keeps sucking up reviewers time. Even if there's no review logged in the history, people who patrol the old drafts queues have to spend time reading enough of it to decide if they want to dig in deeper. That's a time sink, and editor time is the most valuable commodity we've got. And, of course, this MFD has pushed the G13 clock out another month. Actually, at the point
this edit was made, it was G13 elibible, but
this bot edit apparently misled the G13 automation into thinking a human had done something during the time span. --
RoySmith
(talk)
14:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Delete since there were no human edits for six months, so that it was spared from G13 by a bot. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. It is written like a manual. It is all primary source material. The author does not understand that encyclopedic articles are based on secondary sources, sources that comment on primary source material. This is a common newcomer mistake, and is a reason why newcomers should not try to write new pages before getting experience improving existing content. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- This draft is so hopeless that minimally it should be deleted per WP:TNT, allowing anyone to start again. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep I found more sources, but most are published by members of the lab. However, we do source a lot of our NASA spacecraft and spacecraft components articles to NASA sources. It would be different if the information was self published on their website (maybe), but they are getting published in reputable journals. If this passes as keep, send it to main space, ping me, and I will run through and cleanup the article. I saw an instance of " ,issions ", it needs DAB cleanup, toning down of the promotionalness, section headers need sentence case..etc.
Kees08
(Talk)
16:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- eoPortal (has citations at the bottom of page too)
- Oscillator Sources for a DORIS Satellite SDR Receiver System
- Demonstrating TRL-6 on the JHU/APL Frontier Radio for the Radiation Belt Storm Probe mission
- Spacecraft-level verification of the Van Allen Probes' RF communication system
- Van Allen Probes / former RBSP Mission
- Keep. A major project, with sfficient references. In fact, Iwas planning to accept it. Please add the additional ones, and let me know on my talk page. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Please see Grey literature, below. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Grey literature
|
|---|
|
The references for this draft article fall under the category of grey literature, referred to as white and grey literature in the essay, Identifying reliable sources (science). That essay notes: "These papers are typically not peer reviewed in the traditional sense, but may nonetheless provide accurate and accessible information. When assessing the suitability of such a source, consider the reputation of the publishing organization, the reliability and proper use of the sources cited, and how the source is in turn cited or discussed by the relevant academic community." reputation of the publishing organization - Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers is a professional association that publishes several peer reviewed journals and conference proceedings. We have an unassessed article on the first reference's conference— IEEE MTT-S International Microwave Symposium—although it has a multiple issues tag, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (June 2012) [and] This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (June 2012)" reliability and proper use of the sources cited - I'm not sure what "proper use" means, and I don't know of a way to assess the reliability of non-peer-reviewed conference proceeding reports, other than to assume they do not meet WP:RS standards until proven otherwise. how the source is in turn cited or discussed by the relevant academic community - I searched the Astrophysics Data System for the doi and title of reference #1 of the draft article, but neither search returned any results. I search for referred publications by Michael O'Neill, the first author of reference numbers 1, 2, and 3, but the results did not uncover anything similar to the conference proceeding published in a refereed source. (In my experience, "refereed" is usually synonymous with "peer-reviewed", but definitions vary to some extent). Searching for the title of the first citation on Google Scholar, indicates that it has been cited one time in:
which is citation #3 in the draft article and by the same lead author. That doesn't mean the information is useless, and if the draft article cited peer-reviewed journal articles, grey literature like these conference proceeding reports might provide valuable supplemental information. But they are not reliable sources by themselves. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:27, 15 April 2020 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.