Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paperity

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 no consensus. Sandstein 10:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paperity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable online database with no significant coverage to establish notability. GSS ^💬 02:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 02:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now and develop. nearly 5 million papers in the database. I find there is reliable source coverage and the article should be developed. Lightburst (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: A subject must pass WP:N in order to have an article so, having 5 million papers in the database doesn't grant automatic notability. By the way which reliable source you are referring to? GSS ^💬 04:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I added a source in French, but suspect is just a condensed version of a press release on its launch. Notability is not there yet, as not enough independent sources have written about it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I rarely make IAR suggestions but I would lean keep on this just because it is potentially helpful to editors as an aggregator of accessible, reliable sources. buidhe 23:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Helpful? this is not how we judge notability. As I said above a subject must pass WP:N in order to have an article so, can you please add a policy-based comment and explain how this meets our notability standard? GSS ^💬 03:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The right to invoke IAR is policy, per WP:IAR. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 03:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking: WP:IAR does not give free license to put everything on Wikipedia. We have more guidelines, specifically, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:N, these are all CORE guidelines, anything not supported by RSs does not belong to Wikipedia. GSS ^💬 04:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no. the IAR, a policy, derives from the fifth of our five pillars, which is as core as it gets. By contrast, notability, as described in WP:N, is a mere guideline and is rather peripheral. Which is not to say we should ignore notability, but if an editor wants to assert IAR in the service of improving WP, they have that right. Other editors will form thier own opinions of that assertion in the quest for consensus. But invoking IAR is a core right. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 04:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like IAR too, but in AFDs policy/guideline-based arguments almost always succeed over an IAR argument.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources are blogs or routine announcements. Nothing additional came up with Google search. S0091 (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2020 (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.