Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State-Based Control

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. The GNG and OR issues have remain unadressed. Sandstein 06:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

State-Based Control

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The vast majority of citations in this article are to the article author's self published book (see comment here). Most of the rest are other self-published sources, whitepapers and such, from 'Emerson Automation Experts' or employees of Emerson in other venues. What remains are cites (such as 'Control Global' or 'OnePetro') that do not mention the topic of the article. I've looked and haven't turned up any better sourcing, and the author of the article has stated on my user talk that their self-published book is the only one on this topic and there is 'not much out there' otherwise. Since we have very few (1, I think) reliably published sources - and no sources independent of Emerson automation - It would appear this topic does not meet WP:GNG and ought to be deleted. I'm not aware of any more specific notability guideline that this might pass instead, MrOllie (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify -- it's possible that more sources of coverage will emerge than just him and Emerson, but until there are a significant number of independent voices commenting on this idea there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This statement feels like a WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the Insite and discussion. I am new to Wikipedia and I am learning. I am reading through the Conflict of Interest material on Wikipedia, WP:COI WP:GNG , WP:REFSPAM. Please give me some time to read through those and I will get back to you.

I will stand by that my sources are reliable, even though there is a potential conflict of interest. Also I am retired from Emerson, and nobody makes a significant amount of money from an engineering reference book.

I appreciate that you are saying that Wikipedia requires multiple sources for reference. I would hope that there is a means to introduce new things to Wikipedia so that people can learn about them and grow knowledge in that area. This technology has been siloed in a few companies for many years, so as mentioned not much out there. It has great potential for benefit to humanity, through improved safety and productivity.

As Dow Chemical mentioned in reference 2, this technology enabled health and safety, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars.

It is also a type of automation that fosters human automation partnership. So, offers a lot to learn on how to deal with AI. It is a very worthwhile topic.

To my knowledge there is at least one other book on the topic in progress, and in time I am sure there will be more.

This is something that people in industry should know about, and I hope we can find a way for the article to stay. If not in its present form, then maybe some modified form. ProcessControlEng (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to get the word out about what 'people in industry should know about', see WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Whether citations are reliable or not is only part of the equation here - Wikipedia also needs them to be independent, and every source we have so far that is on topic is related to yourself and/or Emerson. MrOllie (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG

"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

From the above statement I take that Wikipedia articles are only suitable for well-established topics. There is simply not much available on the topic of State Based Control. I accept that Wikipedia is not the place for the article. ProcessControlEng (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. I'm constantly surprised that some folks, even after 24 years, don't know that Wikipedia has never published original research. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2025 (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.