Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Behavioural science

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Behavioural science. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Behavioural science|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Behavioural science. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Behavioural science/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Please be sure to follow the three basic steps when nominating an article for deletion. While not required, it is courteous to also notify interested people—such as those who created the article, or those who have contributed significant work to it. Thank you.

Behavioural 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manifold (prediction market)

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

Non-notable. There are no references that show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. The New York Times reference is to a podcast where the site is mentioned, it is not an article. The Vox article does not mention Manifold, just provides a link to it. Jorge.a.alfaro (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jorge.a.alfaro (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Manifold has 95000 backlinks from 1400 domains. It is rapidly growing. Here is some data on search traffic and search engine positioning: https://github.com/JeroenDeDauw/JeroenDeDauw/assets/146040/c0c9d097-82e2-4e84-87f1-0f87deed185f. All data from Ahrefs.

It received millions in funding from multiple sources. It is well known in EA circles.

I think Manifold is notable. Not a great experience contributing to Wikipedia if this kind of content gets deleted because a podcast is not an article. Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeroen, articles have to meet our notability requirements using reliable sources. These requirements are spelled out in WP:CORP and WP:GNG for notability and WP:RS and WP:V for reliable sources. We have these rules to help ensure article reliability - a never-ending struggle here. This means our coverage of new companies is always going to lag Google hits and the blogosphere; that’s a tradeoff we accept.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate your explanation and the reasoning, even though I don't like the result of policy in this case. Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - At this point, I don't think that Manifold is currently notable, but given the recent number of references in reliable sources, I expect it will be in the near future and this article can be expanded upon in Draft space in the meantime. There are a number of trivial references in reliable independent secondary sources (Vox, NYT, Financial Times), but I'm not aware of any significant ones. The New York Times podcast mention is certainly trivial, even though it is reliable. The only significant coverage comes from the Hanania podcast, but it's unclear whether that is independent (Hanania is financially involved with the site) or reliable.

For disclosure, I'm a user of Manifold. Manifold has some prediction markets on whether this article will exist (and not be deleted) - [1] and [2] - but I don't have any stake in those markets and don't see myself as having a COI. However, I suspect that some other editors here will, which they should disclose.

Gbear605 (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For Manifold users betting on this article’s retention, take a look at those requirements I cited to Jeroen above and then compare them with the article - that’s the best way to predict the outcome of this discussion.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For those not playing the Manifold markets, the 2 prediction markets for this article haven't moved a lot over the period from before the article's creation to the current deletion discussion: a 25-ish% chance of an article that "sticks" (no deletion) by 30 September,^[3] a 60-ish% chance by 31 December.^[4]

I interpret this to mean the market participants are looking at media coverage and our reliable sources requirements for themselves, rather than following every pro or con comment here. Good approach, guys.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Gbear605‘s reasoning. Good idea.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Behavioural science, Social science, and Finance. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Full disclosure: I use Manifold and found out about this AfD via the markets about this article's existence, but I have not staked mana on either outcome. As a Manifold user, I love the site and hope it gets more popular to the point where it incontestably merits an article. As a Wikipedia editor... it's clearly not at that point yet. Reliable sources have only mentioned it in passing – we need more substantive coverage to pass NCORP.

I don't think draftifying is the right step either, that's more for articles that should eventually end up in mainspace but aren't at a good standard yet, whereas it's still an open question whether Manifold will ever be notable enough for an article. – Teratix ₵ 07:11, 1 September 2023 (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.

Behavioural science proposed deletions