Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 in science

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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jakob (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in science[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mainly per WP:NOTNEWS. Some of these are sourced to press releases as well. Moreover, there doesn't seem to be any clear inclusion criteria in place for this (that I could find). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - see 2017 in science, 2016 in science, etc. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change, and other stuff exists. I was just starting here to test the waters, but many of those have similar sourcing problems and issues of indiscriminate inclusion of items. (I count 8 items sourced to phys.org in the 2017 article, which isn't reliable). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing issues isn’t a reason to delete the article. This is a valid series of articles, and your deletion rationale rests on it not being news. Scientific discoveries happen every day, so of course it would be cited to press releases. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added more sources, fwiw. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yes - agree with comments by User:Hurricanehink mobile above - article is worthy - and sufficiently reliable to alert those interested to the more responsible scientific literature - no problem whatsoever in improving/updating supporting references to even better citations (if available) of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BRIEF Followup - re the "2018 in science" page - seems one (or more?) of the following may apply? - at least to some extent? => WP:Ignore All Rules, WP:IAR-abg, WP:IARxC, WP:UIAR, WP:NOTBURO, WP:FATRATT - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - agree with comments above. The deletion of this article would logically imply the deletion of all or most Year in Topic articles and would represent a large-scale policy change in the wiki. If you intend to make such a policy change, I certainly don't think this is the way to go about it. 96.59.35.98 (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, part of an article series with highly useful articles. Feel free to use the discussion page if you want to discuss the inclusion criteria. Meanwhile can someone WP:SNOWBALL this? --mfb (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment. The keep !votes above are mainly by regular contributors to this article (and related). A speedy keep at this point is inappropriate until others can weigh in (this hasn't even been deletion sorted yet). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be surprising that some comments, especially early on, come from users who contribute to an article and have it on their watchlist. This doesn’t make them less valid. On the contrary, these are the editors who know the articles best. --mfb (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not surprising at all, but what I was saying is that basing a SNOW keep on just a few regulars would be inappropriate. The sorters-that-be seemed to have missed this for some reason, so I went ahead and added it to science and to tech. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have never edited this type of page. Indeed, I hate seeing future pages for years ahead for things like sports when no events have yet happened. That said, this science-related page is part of a series of informative and potentially useful pages which already contains notable content just 8 days into 2018. The events are all (or mostly) notable, though I would like to see citations supporting predictable and guaranteed future events like total eclipses - to lead users to where in the world those events can be observed. Past pages have grown and become very good encyclopaedic resumes of each particular year. viz 2014 in science; 2015 in science; 2016 in science; 2017 in science. I actually do think it merits a speedy keep for once. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The eclipses have links, we have articles for them decades into the future where you can check the visibility. --mfb (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't know we had pages like this, but it's a reasonable way to classify and organize. We could quibble and quarrel over inclusion criteria, but that's an argument for another venue, and the basic concept of this page is sound. XOR'easter (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am anonymous user, and rarely make any changes. However I must say, 20XX_in_science articles are my main source of information. Every other news place I've seen includes a whole bunch of ad like material.. This wikipedia listing does not have the filler articles and other nonsense. Deacon Vorbis sounds like he really knows the policies of wikipedia very well. I now have learned that there is a "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" policy. But that is sad to me, as I don't have any good alternatives! And that includes wikinews and wikisource! 68.12.125.11 (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --110.93.240.216 (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I am simply amazed, shocked and horrified that anyone would suggest this page for deletion. These science pages have been updated for many years, and contain a wealth of information on scientific progress and discoveries. They are literally the main reason I edit Wikipedia. Shame on you for nominating this for deletion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Shame on you"? You realize this is a discussion and is part of the Wikipedia process, right? If they don't believe the article belongs here, they can nominate it for deletion. It's not a personal insult. Natureium (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep I agree with Wjfox2005 and everyone on this page, I am amazed that such thing has been nominated for deletion and it is to show scientific progress within 2018 and beyond through Wikipedia also shame on the person who nominated this for deletion. D Eaketts (talk) 08:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. Doubts about WP:RS in the article and inclusion criteria can be addressed on the talkpage of the article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with all the other folks voicing support, I believe the 2018 in science article shouldn't be deleted. Leave it to a controversy to make me feel the need to edit for the first time :D 10:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep - Reason: The article is worthy. It's content format brings in a priorization, which distringuishes it from unpriorized scientific news stream. This difference makes this article a valuable and meaningful source for keeping a meaningful overview of what's happening in the world. It would be nice, if the quality of the article would explore the room for improvement it still has, but I see no crucial deficites regarding this. Another argument for keeping this article is that it's a nice counterweight in times of misinformation, propaganda, and idiologically motivated deletion of scientific data, etc., where it even becomes necessary to make a March for Science. Facing this struggle to hold up evidence based science it's of special importance that Wikipedia offers the public a strong, broad, and independent information platform of what meaningful events are happening in science over the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.32.85.50 (talk)
Keep while the criticisms leveled above against the nom are over the top, this is a reasonable and encyclopedic subject. Lepricavark (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.