Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HDBuzz

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

HDBuzz

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

There are insufficient independent sources with substantial discussion of the site - just a bunch of promotional refs. This WP article exists to advertise the website. Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to either of the two founders who appear to be genuinely notable under WP:PROF. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As it stands, I agree the article is too promotional and poorly sourced. But it is widely used - among others, it supplies a news feed to the websites of the UK Huntington's Disease Association, the Huntington's Disease Society of America and the Huntington Society of Canada. These don't meet the requirement for independent coverage but I think amount to endorsements of its significant role in the global HD community as a provider of research news. The problem here for web notability is that it is more used than written about. Similarly, the awards from the HDSA and HDA are important recognition within the HD community but perhaps cannot be considered independent because these organizations fund HDBuzz. However, in terms of more conventional evidence of notability, I found the following:

Award

2014 Communication Awards from the Association of Medical Research Charities. The award was to the Huntington's Disease Association but the citation says it was for "their" HDBuzz website "which explains the latest Huntington's disease research in plain, understandable language. In addition to research articles, the website also publishes information to put sensationalised 'miracle cures' into a realistic context." (In fact, HDA is one of several supporters of HDBuzz so calling it "their" website isn't quite accurate but the intent of the award is clear.) This award and is clearly significant recognition of the project by a respected, independent authority.

Books

'Huntington's Disease' (OUP) is the foremost scientific/clinical text on HD, with 1122 citations according to Google Scholar. Dr Wild authored the chapter on Premanifest and Early HD so that can't chapter be considered independent with respect to HDBuzz. But the website is mentioned in other chapters by independent authors. The chapter on Genetic Testing and Counselling (Macleod and Tibben - no link to HDBuzz as far as I can tell) says: "HDBuzz provides clear, up-to-date information on the latest scientific research. For the many family members who are unable to attend HD conferences or access scientific journals, this provides a new opportunity to watch video links to conference activity and keep abreasy of research developments.". The chapter on Comprehensive Care (authored by Nance - no connection as far as I can tell) says: "Patients and families can be referred to their national HD organization, to HDBuzz for information..." Citation: Google Books
HDBuzz is mentioned in the 2nd edition of Neurobiology of Disease (OUP) edited by Johnston, Adams and Fatemi. It's not a lengthy mention but it's a large and authoritative tome (1434 pages). HDBuzz is cited as an additional resource in the HD Chapter, by Albin and Paulson (no link to HDBuzz as far as I can tell). Citation: Google books
Another book, The Best Australian Science Writing (NewSouth, 2015) has a whole chapter, authored by Christine Kenneally (no connection to HDBuzz as far as I can tell) on Jeff Carroll which says of HDBuzz: "Carroll also started a website called HDBuzz with a colleague, Huntington's clinician Ed Wild. Both men were concerned about the amount of misinformation and hype about Huntington's in the press, and they were struck too by the fact that while affected families desperately needed up-to-date information about research on the disease, Huntington's also desperately needed affected families to help them with their studies. The site helps the two connect." Citation: Google Books
Chorea: causes and management (Springer) edited by Micheli and LeWitt (no connection to HDBuzz as far as I can tell) says: "Fortunately, in recent years, information from reliable sources has become available on the internet about HD and HD research using language and a format that is suitable for lay persons and young people (www.hdbuzz.net...)". Citation: Google books

News

La Stampa, an Italian newspaper, in an article about Charles Sabine, says "It is also one of the creators of the site http://it.hdbuzz.net/006 (version in Italian), which aims to spread scientific information about Huntington's disease and is spokesman of various associations of patients." (Google Translate)

Overall I think the award and these mentions amount to notability per WP:GNG. Clearly the article needs updating to make this apparent and I would be happy to do this if it's kept, as well as making it more encyclopedic. Braydonowen (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Braydonowen, NOTABILITY calls for substantial discussion in independent sources. A mention here and there doesn't cut it. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the requirement is for coverage to be "significant", not "substantial" (I think there's an important difference between these two, the emphasis not being on size) and in WP:GNG this is further explained as "more than a trivial mention". The Neurobiology of Disease mention perhaps could be considered 'trivial' but I think the mentions in the Huntington's Disease book, Australian Science Writing book and chorea book are not, especially when you consider that these are scientific textbooks discussing a website. I suggest they be considered together under WP:GNG alongside the AMRC award considered under WP:WEB. Braydonowen (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are splitting hairs. Passing mentions do not cut it. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel I"m splitting hairs when my intent is to stick to the guidelines. The guideline says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." You've made your view clear, and the coverage and award, not listed the article at the time of your nomination, are now listed here for others to judge per the guidelines. Braydonowen (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: I also found this on Google Scholar - an editorial from the RSM journal Clinical Ethics by Farsides: Courage, compassion and commnunication: young people and Huntington's disease (2011): "The Huntington's Disease Association has joined with other organizations worldwide to help fund HD Buzz (http://hdbuzz.net/), a website devoted to explaining and sharing current research in the field, making it accessible to much wider audiences than scientific journals can ever hope to reach." I think this counts as a suitable independent source. Others are entitled to take their own view... Source Braydonowen (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Huntington's Disease Association, based upon the 2014 Communications Award cited above. I think that the problem with respect to WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT is that almost all of the sourcing is not really independent of the page subject. I do recognize that the Association is just one of several supporting organizations, not the only one, but I think that the award establishes it as a principal supporter in the assessment of secondary sources, and some truly merged content can make it clear that there are multiple organizations. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The comment after my own made me realize that I said something in an unclear way, so I want to clarify that. When I wrote that the sourcing is not really independent, I should have made clear that I meant the available sourcing, not just the sourcing currently cited on the page. I also looked at the sourcing named in this discussion and did some looking on my own. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you explain how the sourcing I cited above isn't independent? Thanks. Braydonowen (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking me to explain the obvious. Aside from some very minor passing mentions, the sourcing is from people affiliated in various ways with the page subject. The WP:BURDEN is on you, to make the case that there is sufficient sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for but didn't find any evidence that the sources I listed are linked to the page subject, except in the very broad sense that several of them are authored by scientists involved in Huntington's disease research. Surely you can't be suggesting that this disqualifies them from being independent about an HD-related communication project? In any event, The 'Best Australian Science Writing' book is by someone not even linked to Huntington's disease as far as I can tell. WP:BURDEN may place the burden on me to provide suitable sources, but it doesn't require the impossible task of proving a negative. I think it's in the spirit of assuming good faith and civilly working towards agreement to provide evidence, when asked, for a claim that sources are not independent. I'm sorry if I'm missing something obvious. Braydonowen (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article in its current form makes no real effort to establish notability using suitable sources and is poorly written. But the topic itself has independent notability per Braydonowen's searches and it would be easy to rewrite. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 08:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dubbin the sources Brady found are all passing mentions. You created this article, right? Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and several years later I recognise it's not a good article in its current form. I too disagree that they are passing mentions - I think you have too rigid a definition not supported by the notability guidelines. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 07:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for replying! We don't agree on what substantial discussion is, for sure. Jytdog (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am seeing a lack of independent news coverage.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage isn't required per se - any independent source is acceptable towards establishing notability. I found several independent book sources, an award and a news source, listed above. I will happily rewrite the article around these if it is kept. If my job isn't up to scratch, others can chip in or it can be renominated for deletion. Braydonowen (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as even the Keep or Merge votes themselves are stating there are still in fact concerns with the article, but they are then not actually stating how, where and why this can then be substantially improved, let alone actually convincingly kept; examining this is simply finding PR and unconvincing information and sources; nothing at all actually close to substance. SwisterTwister talk 00:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are mentions. The awards are trivial or second hand. Two of the founders received a notable award for their research, but not for founding their work on this society. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the discussion remains open, I edited the page to give an indication of how it might look if improved to focus on suitable sources and establishment of notability. I hope contributors will be so kind as to review it. Braydonowen (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at it, and it seems to me that you essentially stubified it, but I don't think that this really established a rationale for keeping the page. It may perhaps make it easier to merge the small amount of remaining content. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the site's editors are pitching for coverage on social media (re below, yes, in response to this discussion). I am leaning keep (and at the least merge to founders) but will think a bit more before/if voting. Blythwood (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

gah i wonder if that is a direct reaction to this deletion discussion. if so, gross. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2016 (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.