Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turing Research

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. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turing Research (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)

as per my prod: this is nothing more than original research, TR isn't an institute, it's a research group and all the sources that even make mention of it are just bylines by the authors, which are self published by the page creator. The rest of the sources make no mention of "turing Research" Praxidicae (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge a summary paragraph to George Mason University#Science and Technology but delete article per nom. There's no independent articles on this group, although Googling "Turing research" even in quotes brings up tons of articles not related to this group. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The London School of Economics article mentions the Turing Group (link: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2020/02/17/the-use-of-robots-and-artificial-intelligence-in-war/). They are also mentioned in the following workshop paper, https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.08670. The group also has a LinkedIn page at https://www.linkedin.com/company/turing-research/. It is a funded institute. I'm an avid AI enthusiast, and I thought Wikipedia needs to be updated with more AI groups in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akumar19 (talk • contribs)
• Based on Wikipedia's definition of a research institute, "A research institute or research center is an establishment founded for doing research. Research institutes may specialize in basic research or may be oriented to applied research". The Turing Research group is an accurate representation of that definition. Therefore, it is an official research institute.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Akumar19 (talk • contribs)
• This article is not an orphan, it is linked from George Mason University#Science and Technology's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akumar19 (talk • contribs)

• All research institutes have to perform original research, among other activities. Turing research has a well-known name in AI and the Washington, DC area (i.e. at the US government).

• Based on the "list of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates", the Turing Research page adheres to the following policy/guideline name:

Academics WP:ACADEMIC WP:PROFESSOR Wikipedia:Notability (academics) "Notability requirements for people based on academic achievements" fbatarse

Akumar19 It would be helpful if you would read the sources you're citing are reliable and give an indication of notability. The first one you cite explicitly says:This blog post expresses the views of its author(s), not the position of LSE Business Review or the London School of Economics. and it was clearly by someone with a name remarkably similar to your username. Linkedin is irrelevant, as is the rest. Praxidicae (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae according to Wikipedia:Notability (academics): "It is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of number/quality of publications". So the publications by this group are a valid representation of their research activity and national recognition fbatarse

Please learn how to properly edit AFDs as you're messing up all the responses here including refactoring many of them. Also you can quote that as much as you want fbatarse but it's meaningless without actual sources to back it up. Please go read WP:COI while you're at it. Praxidicae (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Praxidicae Please read the guidelines on those discussions, you are not supposed to be addressing the debaters in an aggressive manner as you are, you are supposed to be discuss the page itself. WP:COI is clear and not violated in any form. Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability (academics)fbatarse (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• When they're violating the rules with regards to how discussions work on Wikipedia, yes Praxidicae is allowed to call them out, especially when they're refusing to listen. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 21:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Praxidicae Please address the multiple previous comments, you ignored most of them. the case is made using Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and other wikipedia rules and regulations. fbatarse (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:Notability (academics) does not apply to research groups or institutions, and nothing I see in the sources indicates Yang, Batarseh, or TR are notable under any of the criteria (TR would fall under WP:Notability (organizations and companies), but the sources there don't even come close to cutting it as they're almost all written by one of TR's principals and the rest are staff listings). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 21:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A blog entry is not a reliable source. Is this really the best source that can be found? Akumar19 notes that this article is not an orphan, and points to George Mason University#Science and Technology, that's because just externally linked it there in violation of WP:ELNO and then later changed it to a wikilink, without even citing a reliable source. Wikipedia articles are not a place to publish your own research. I don't see that this meets notability criteria, either. Waggie (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please sign your comment appropriately — Preceding unsigned comment added by fbatarse (talk • contribs)

My comment is signed appropriately. Yours, interesting, is not. Waggie (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting choice of what to call out. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 21:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as all the reasons for deletion are appropriately addressed. This discussion needs to be based on Wikipedia rules, and that is our reference, not personal opinions.

fbatarse (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read said "rules", fbatarse Including those about your undisclosed WP:COI. Praxidicae (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

o, they aren't. None of your sources work towards satisfying WP:Notability or WP:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:Notability (academics) does not apply to research groups), as they're self-published papers coauthored by the group's members or short blurbs written by and about same. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 21:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the references are published by many authors, and they are not self-published. fbatarse (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to reread what you just wrote. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 21:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Compare this to many pages of other research groups, they are the same - this meets all requirements. fbatarse (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't judge an article's existence on whether other articles in a similar topic area exist or not, and this article does not satisfy WP:Notability or the relevant alternate criteria. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 21:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This clearly fails to meet any of our notability guidelines. Those defending the article are simply an embarrassment to this research group, and seem to be lacking in any old-fashioned human intelligence, let alone the artificial kind. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• New users: The thing that can save this article is to provide independent, reliable sources that discuss this group directly and in detail. Not papers authored by its members, not its members' proseless pages at their universities. Certainly not pointing out other articles that also fail our inclusion criteria - see WP:Other stuff exists for why that isn't a valid argument. —Cryptic 21:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources that satisfy WP:GNG guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- the reliable, secondary sources necessary for WP:GNG just aren't there. Reyk _YO! 05:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's not easy for a research group at a university to qualify as wiki-notable, and there is no indication that this is an exception. The WP:PROF notability guideline invoked above is inapplicable, because it's for people, not groups. XOR'easter (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's possible that this subject could meet our notability guidelines. However, to do so we would need to see a list of their notable accomplishments, viz. has Turning Research produced any results that have been written up in the mainstream media, & clearly are not PR releases? Until that can be provided, any article on TR is doomed to return to WP:Articles for Deletion & be removed from Wikipedia. (A more successful solution might be to add something to the Research section of George Mason University; that article lacks any mention of this unit.) Until those notable successes are provided, all I see that could be written is that TR "specializes in artificial intelligence and data science applications helping to make public policy decisions" -- hardly the basis for a useful article. -- llywrch (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would have no problem with adding this to the list at George Mason University#Centers and institutes and redirecting there if this name is unambiguous (I think it's quite likely that, given the stature of Alan Turing, other research institutes exist with this name), but do we have any independent reliable sources that do any more than give us the name? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• And/or an entry at Alan Turing#Posthumous tributes. There are many more appropriate places in Wikipedia for this group than an orphan article. -- llywrch (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and include in the list at George Mason University#Centers and institutes without a redirect. There are various other research groups with similar names, most notably the Alan Turing Institute - if you Google "Turing Research", you come across quite a lot of them before finding this group. As others have said, WP:NORG would apply here rather than WP:NPROF, and the available sourcing I can find does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH standards. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:50, 22 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.