Talk:Clarice Phelps

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Draft talk:Clarice E. Phelps)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Nuvola apps kedit.svg Article milestones
February 1, 2019Proposed deletionKept
February 4, 2019Articles for deletionDeleted
February 11, 2019Deletion reviewEndorsed
April 3, 2019Candidate for speedy deletionKept
April 4, 2019Articles for deletionSpeedily deleted
April 29, 2019Candidate for speedy deletionRenamed
May 1, 2019Deletion reviewEndorsed
January 31, 2020Deletion reviewRestored

31 January 2020 Deletion review[edit]

I'm a little surprised it wasn't mentioned at this talkpage that it was going on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Good question - Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review does not require notification on draft talk pages and the notification at the AFD page was there but only on the first one. Kaldari? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize so many people were going to be interested in this. My apologies if I did the deletion review incorrectly. Kaldari (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
@Kaldari: The original deletion discussion occuppied ~50 editors, had 15000 words written on it, and you didn't realize so many people were going to be interested?! ——SN54129 15:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you knowDYK comment symbol nomination

This review is transcluded from Template:Did you know nominations/Clarice Phelps. You may review or comment on the nomination by clicking here.

Clarice Phelps
Clarice Phelps
  • ... that Clarice Phelps (pictured) was repeatedly deleted from Wikipedia?
  • Reviewed: President Clinton
  • Comment: See DRV for the most recent consensus finding about moving this to mainspace. I've listed just four authors per these stats as I don't want to break the nomination but maybe we can add more.

Created by Jesswade88 (talk), Hodgdon's secret garden (talk), Kaldari (talk), and Levivich (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 16:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC).

  • The image is public domain, like all the other Oak Ridge images which we are using (see Actinium, for example). GMG's contrary view lacks consensus and is not held by any of the parties such as Oak Ridge or the subject. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I've replaced the image to use one which appears on a DoE website: DOE Celebrates Black History Month. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg Long enough, new enough. No apparent policy or sourcing issues. No apparent plagerism. EarWig's shows a lot of results but nothing of concern. The hook is a bit off. Please choose something about her life. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

  • What does "a bit off" mean? C&C should please clarify their objections. We will have some time as this was put forward as a picture hook and the pictures have now been deleted too. I'm putting some feelers out to get a replacement... Andrew🐉(talk) 19:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: After all the trouble to get her here, I think we should focus on her and not on this stupid controversy we created. I think we should avoid navel-gazing and recognize her for once. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with C&C. A hook like this glosses over some of the other things we can talk about (like being in the Navy before her discovery? appearing on the IUPAC's Periodic Table of Younger Chemists?) The Wikipedia thing, in my opinion at least, should be something we use as a last resort, especially since it's pretty meta. epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, I found this interesting: She is the first African-American woman to be involved with the discovery of a chemical element. I think this is probably the most directly hook-worthy fact. epicgenius (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I mean, you might be able to make a compromise if we can keep it concise: e.g., ... that X walked on the moon, scaled mount Everest, cured cancer, and then was deleted from Wikipedia? GMGtalk 20:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
"Follow the sources", right? Pretty much all the independent secondary sources were written after her page was deleted, and either mention the deletion, or focus on the deletion. Based on what the RSes are writing about, her page deletion (meta or navel-gazing as it might be) is part of her notability, if not the core of it. I agree with GMG's suggested compromise. How about:
ALT1: ... that Clarice Phelps (pictured), the first African-American woman to help discover a chemical element, was deleted twice from Wikipedia? Levivich 20:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I can get behind this but can we avoid saying that a human being was deleted. The article about her was deleted. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Ping Levivich. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Pong Coffeeandcrumbs. I'm good with "... that the article about Clarice Phelps ...", or something similar. – Levivich 01:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Levivich, if I suggest it, I cannot review it. Face-wink.svgFace-wink.svg --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
something something dyk bureaucracy Hey guys! How about:
ALT2: ... that the article about Clarice Phelps (pictured), the first African-American woman to help discover a chemical element, was deleted twice from Wikipedia? – Levivich 01:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Or: ALT3: ... that Clarice Phelps served in the engine room of the USS Ronald Reagan, was the first black woman to help discover a chemical element, and the article about her was deleted twice from Wikipedia?
Maybe that's too many words. – Levivich 01:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg Hooks ALT2 and ALT3 are cited in-line and interesting. QPQ is done. Good to go. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  • @Levivich: If we're looking to go with Alt 3, we could really use some more careful wordsmithing: that Clarice Phelps served in the engine room of on the USS Ronald Reagan, and was the first black woman to help discover a chemical element, and but the article about her was deleted twice from Wikipedia? GMGtalk 13:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo, ALT3 is technically short enough. But if you add ALT4, I will give a green means go. Caution you though, that "but" is going to be seen as POV; "and" is more NPOV. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know I agree that conjunctions are clearly POV. It is constructed as a juxtaposition. When contrasting "good thing, good thing, bad thing" or "A thing, A thing, B thing", the word but should be used, asand implies they are the same "type of thing". GMGtalk 14:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo, look at it from the deleting editor's point of view. The version he deleted had neither the USS Ronald Reagan nor proper sourcing for "the first black woman to help discover a chemical element". Saying "but" at least implies that the article was deleted in spite of this information. That was not so. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
If we have a longer hook which adds to the deletion issue then the word "but" is quite appropriate.Andrew🐉(talk) 17:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I can see both sides of the "and/but" argument and don't really have a strong opinion. Pinging authors Jesswade88, Hodgdon's secret garden, and Kaldari for input on the hook. Levivich 17:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I've been nudging people to get more images loaded and this has started to happen. The subject has loaded a stack of images onto Commons. The bad news is that attempts to delete them are now being made, such as this. But the deletion discussion for the original image is not settled as it seems that there are contradictory OTRS tickets. It's amusing that Wikipedia claims that it is not a bureaucracy and ignores all rules but we should wait for this to work itself out before advancing the DYK, as we're bound to get an image through the gauntlet eventually. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree about waiting a bit to let the OTRS/copyright issues get sorted out so the article can have a picture (hopefully more than one). Levivich 17:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
If someone is in contact with the subject, as I suspect @Jesswade88: may be as she was aware of the new uploads in under an hour, and she is active on social media, the easiest way to get an image in short order would be to ask her to take an actual selfie, that is legitimately own work, not available elsewhere online, and has the original meta data intact. But we cannot have the subject simply collect images of herself from hither an yon and upload them as her own work. GMGtalk 17:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
As GMG is now trying to delete the new images too, we're better off sticking to the original image, which is supported by a clear official statement of its public domain standing. We're now back on track with that, thanks to Levivich's local upload. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Objection - African-American and Black are no where near to being the same thing, and the article has never claimed that Clarice Phelps is the first black woman to be involved with the discovery of a chemical element. In case it's not clear, I am referring to Alt3, not Alt1 and 2, both of which correctly state African-American. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Mr rnddude, see the timeline of quotes of the "first" claim at Talk:Clarice Phelps#Weighting and accuracy. Some sources say AA, some say black. In the December 11 podcast interview, Phelps herself uses both terms when discussing the claim. In this particular case, since the subject and the sources use both terms, I think we can use either term. "Black" is shorter; I think "AA" is used by a slight majority of sources. – Levivich 20:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Our article does not claim first black woman, and none of the three cited sources supporting the claim say first black woman either. All three state African-American, as does IUPAC. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
While that is true, the talk page thread I linked to lists 14 sources that have the "first" claim, seven of which use "black", and eight of which use "African-American" (one source–Phelps herself–uses both). There is an ongoing discussion about exactly what our article should say and which sources should be cited. Your input on the talk page on that would be welcome. (I don't actually have a preference which we use, I just don't think either one are "wrong" or "right", since the sources are split and Phelps uses both.) Let's agree the hook and the article should use the same terminology. But I'd invite everyone reading this to go over to the talk page and cast a !vote about whether the language used in the article and the sources cited should be changed or not, so that we can establish durable consensus for concrete language. - Levivich 21:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich: I could be wrong, but I only count 4 sources (of the 14) that use "black woman", as opposed to "black American woman" or "African American woman", and one of them is the Daily Dot, which is hardly a reliable source for chemistry. "African American" is a more narrow claim and also more plausible. Many elements were discovered in pre-historic times, likely by black people. Personally, I would favor using "African American woman", as the article does. Kaldari (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
OK I was going to suggest additional hooks in response to the feedback above and below, but what I'm coming out with is way too wordy and needs copyediting to make it crisp. Any suggestions/improvements on:
... that Clarice Phelps served as an NCO aboard the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan, was the first African-American woman to help discover a chemical element, [and/but] the article about her was deleted twice from Wikipedia? Levivich 19:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Levivich, please give this hook a number and it is too long. Use this tool. We want below 200 characters (not counting "(pictured)" and "..." but including "?"). --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy to let someone else take a crack at further hook suggestions. Levivich 15:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Please note, while the Commons deletion discussion (as of this time, trending keep) may take over a month to be closed (judging by their backlog), our FFD process takes 7 days. I've uploaded a local copy of the image (File:Clarice Phelps ORNL headshot.jpg), which is now at FFD, and so I'd ask this nom remain open for seven days until that discussion closes so we can potentially have a picture for this nom. Levivich 16:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  • comment - Inasmuch as the controversy over her blp's inclusion appropriately pertains more to wikipedia than to her, any bluelink to it ought redirect, say, to a subsection in whatever the WP omnibus article about Wikipedia controversies (eg - where would this fully-referenced news quote of Dr Jess Wade, physicist from Imperial College London, best fit: "Writing her [Phelps's] page was constantly inspirational"? w/in the article about phelps? or w/in one about wikipedia controversies?).

    So maybe a DYK w rgd Phelps might more optimally reference Phelps's community activities (diff) followed by note of her scientific career including her assist on the super-heavy elements milestone. For example, see this 2019 blurb by TEDxNashville.

    Clarice Phelps
    Program Manager, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

    "Clarice Phelps is a research scientist at Oak Ridge National Lab who previously served in the United States Navy as an NCO in the Naval Nuclear Power Program. With a combined 16 years of experience, she has worked on the separation, purification and processing of radioisotopes for private and commercial entities. Clarice is dedicated to STEM initiatives and ensuring that access to STEM education is available to under-represented communities. In 2019, she was recognized by the IUPAC's (International Union Of Pure and Applied Chemistry) Periodic Table of Young Chemists for her commitment, public engagement, and being an advocate for diversity. She is the first African- American woman to be involved with the discovery of an element, Tennessine."

    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Primarily the alts but also the shorter initial proposal. Sorry, but so-called "inclusionist" Wikipedians should not be rewarded for feeding misleading narratives to "reliable secondary sources" about how Wikipedia's systemic bias against Black women had anything to do with this page's deletion, and unsourced claims to the contrary have no place in the article itself, let alone on the main page. Many of the "inclusionist" editors who argued against the page's deletion are just as likely, if not more likely, to argue against deletion of articles on old white men, and apparently favour removing our inclusion criteria that, if removed, would work far more to the benefit of said old white men (and their locally operated snake oil companies) than to victims of systemic bias who are in fact notable. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Moreover, the claim that it was deleted twice (per community discussion, systemic bias, or anything else) is technically misleading, even if it is sourced; one AFD ended in deletion, an editor disruptively recreated the page contrary to that consensus, and it was speedily deleted a second time as a result. I might as well ping User:TonyBallioni, since editors are discussing essentially badmouthing him on the main page of the encyclopedia without ever having notified him. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I've stricken the above because enough people have been painted (both on- and off-wiki) as racist/sexist for saying the article didn't meet our inclusion criteria, and given how absurd that claim is I see no reason to believe that opposing the current DYK nomination wouldn't draw the same kind of retaliatory action. I don't need that kind of hassle right now, so I'm withdrawing my opposition. Great "inclusionism", guys. (And let's be clear, it is almost all "guys" -- specifically white men who have no sincere interest in combating systemic bias -- whom I was addressing with the above; I have not now, nor have I ever had, any strong opinions one way or the other on whether we have an article on this particular chemist, and my issue has rather been with the contentious behaviour of certain Wikipedians.)Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I won't cast a formal oppose, but I share Hijiri88's sentiments regarding the inappropriateness of this hook. We should not be throwing those who !voted to delete in prior discussions under the bus by implying that they were culpable agents of systemic bias. Oh, and this is navel-gazing. One can easily construct a satisfactory hook that doesn't throw anyone under the bus. Lepricavark (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg In light of the opposition, we need new hook suggestions. I am still willing to review any new hooks. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Coffeeandcrumbs has made many edits of the article and seems too involved to be a reviewer. Per H2, we must "Use common sense here, and avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. " Andrew🐉(talk) 17:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
For the record – regardless of C&C giving up their role as reviewer to offer up a hook – C&C had not edited the article prior to conducting this review. Your "concern", Andrew Davidson, is manufactured horse manure. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Good, that frees me up to suggest a hook:
ALT5... that the IUPAC recognized Clarice Phelps and Nathan Brewer in the Periodic Table of Younger Chemists in part due to their contributions in the discovery of tennessine?
--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a relatively good hook, save perhaps for "in part due to" which kills some of the hookiness, but I think that ideally the hook should focus on Phelps alone. I may as well contribute an
  • ALT6:
    ... that Clarice Phelps is a nuclear scientist recognized as the first African-American woman to be involved in the discovery of a chemical element?
    Simple, short, and to the main point. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I am not personally opposed to ALT6 as presented above, but I think we should note that it (and other alts like it) carry the implication that both "at least one African-American man" and "at least one woman who was not African-American" (and even "at least one Black woman who was not American") have been involved in the discovery of chemical elements in the past.
Everyone knows Marie Curie discovered two elements, so the second is fine, but not being a chemist myself I am not comfortable speculating on how many African-American men and Black women who weren't American could have been "involved in" the discovery of various chemical elements. See this for an example of how messy such things can be, where popular media sources deliberately use overly specific classifiers because they don't want to do the research to find out whether it would be okay to say that someone was "the first Asian American to play a leading character in a Star Wars film" and have to tag "woman" onto it.
Moreover, there is also the fact that "African-American" is generally perceived as a more polite synonym for "Black", but by calling her "the first African-American woman" we are not only using a polite euphemism but also implicitly stating that it would be wrong to call her "the first Black woman" (because, for instance, there have been one or more Black British women who have been "involved in" the discovery of chemical elements in the past). I don't want to get into an argument over whether it's not okay ("OR", to use a phrase that gets thrown around a lot on Wikipedia talk pages by people who really should know better) to assume a source is saying "African-American" simply to be polite and not to distinguish "American of Black African ancestry" from "person of Black African ancestry" based on a Google search of discoverers of known elements to determine that no "Black women who were not American" have been involved in said discoveries in the past and just write "Black", but I would also question the appropriateness of assuming that sources aren't just being polite and do in fact mean to distinguish "African-American" from "Black". (I also wouldn't be surprised if, say, no African-American men had been involved in the discovery of a chemical element in the past but a Black man from a country other than America had, and "reliable sources" that clumsily use "African-American" to refer to Black people regardless of whether they are American decided to dub her "the first African-American woman" even if she is in fact "the first African-American" with no "woman" qualifier being necessary.)
There's also the fact that I don't feel particularly inclined to go and do any of that googling myself: does anyone else here?
Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
James Andrew Harris. As for white women, Marie Curie was the first; there have been others; two worked with Phelps, for example. not being a chemist myself I am not comfortable speculating on how many African-American men and Black women who weren't American could have been "involved in" the discovery of various chemical elements ... yes that's exactly right. Don't speculate. Thankfully, we don't have to speculate, we have a source. 14 sources, actually, but the best one is IUPAC. They are chemists, and they're the international body that officially recognizes new elements and sets the standard for the periodic table of elements, and so they don't need to speculate. This is Wikipedia: we follow the sources, we don't second guess them with our own speculation or original research. Levivich 17:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
So ... you're saying that you also don't know if any Black women who weren't American had been "involved in" the discovery of chemical elements prior to Phelps? (The quotes are not scare-quotes -- my problem is that the wording is vague, and so verifying based on original research that no Black women who weren't American had ever been "involved in the discovery of a chemical element in some way" would be virtually impossible, so a reliable source would be needed explicitly verifying or falsifying as much.) You have my gratitude for pointing out Harris, but I don't know why you needed to draw attention to the fact that there have been other white women, since I didn't ask that question. The fact that many of our sources are written by chemists is irrelevant, since chemists are just as likely as anyone else to use "African-American" instead of "Black" based more on politeness than precision -- I don't think it is a good idea for us to be implying that she was not "the first Black woman to be involved in the discovery of a chemical element" unless we can confirm that she was in fact not. (Also, I find it a little weird that you of all people are saying I shouldn't be talking about stuff outside my field when you were talking down to me about stuff inside my field, about which you clearly knew nothing that you hadn't learned from Wikipedia, just two months ago...) Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
BTW, the predicate of "which" is "stuff", not "my field"; I don't know if you know stuff about Japanese language and literature that you didn't learn from Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hijiri 88: First, African-American isn't a euphemism. Second, the specific wording used by the sources wasn't just made up out of thin air, it's actually been researched. Do you really think the IUPAC and Physics Today would make such a statement without knowing what they were talking about? James Andrew Harris was the first African-American to help discover an element. And neither of them are the first black person involved in the discovery of an element, as it is quite likely that many elements were originally discovered in Africa by black people in pre-historic times, such as gold and silver (as discussed by physics author, Kit Chapman). Regardless, the hook as written is well supported by the article and the sources cited, which is what matters. Frankly, you seem to be much more interested in the politics of this article than the article itself, but I'll assume good faith for the time being. Kaldari (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: My ping failed because your signature doesn't match your username :P Kaldari (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
First, African-American isn't a euphemism. Yes, it is. People mistakenly use "African-American" as a polite word for "Black person of African descent" or even "Black person from Africa" all the time. This of course does not relate to Phelps herself, but it might relate to others, so the problem is that we should ideally be able to find sources that actually say she wasn't "the first Black woman...". Second, the specific wording used by the sources wasn't just made up out of thin air, it's actually been researched. That is the assumption, yes. Do you really think the IUPAC and Physics Today would make such a statement without knowing what they were talking about? Again, maybe they're just being polite, which has nothing to do with accuracy or reliability: the IUPAC does not use the phrase "first Black woman" anywhere on their website.[1] And neither of them are the first black person involved in the discovery of an element, as it is quite likely that many elements were originally discovered in Africa by black people in pre-historic times, such as gold and silver (as discussed by physics author, Kit Chapman). Huh. That's actually quite a good point. I withdraw my ... non-opposing query, I guess. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Re the suggested hooks above, maybe WP's own "DYK" w rgd this blp's deletions--tho "navel gazing," sure!--would be a find way for the Community "consentaneously" to go out of its way to draw attention to where in a certain instance various advocates successfully mounted a publicity campaign in their addressing the scientific field &tc blah blah blah's ersatz systemic wp:BIASes. What the hey.
    If it was solely up to me, though, I'd pick Alt5 'cos it's seemingly more complimentary to the subject of the blp than merely referencing that she'd been the source of former discussions hereabouts IMO--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
In a side note to Ms user:Hijiri88: Yeah it's true it's my opinion that inasmuch as Wikipedia-isn't-written-on-paper my own !voting position defaults to If there are multiple sources covering certain subjects, even those whose import is questioned by many (or else even are often thought pseudo-scientific in nature), let's go ahead and Keep. ((Also, for what it's worth, I'd think it might be perfectly reasonable for WP not to host articles on either of the youngish researchers Clarice Phelps or Nathan Brewer, too. Be that as it may, that ship has sailed.[2]))
As for ah "the Tertiariacy" ((by which I mean us & other encyclopedias ha ha ha))'s performing "due diligence" about things we cover, that's perfectly reasonable and ok too, in my opinion, even if we must do what equates to our ah "originating research" to come to these conclusions [eg say Should there be just loads of, yes, completely independently sourced and arguably extensively ah um 'researched' material built upon or naively reviewed among folks holding onto whatever leapsoffaith premises of the flat earth society hey maybe an academic encyclopedia might reasonably choose to give the same short shrift in its coverage compared to something not outta left field].
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hodgdon's secret garden: Umm ... what does any of the above have to do with what I wrote, and if it has nothing to do with what I wrote then why did you ping me? The closing statement of the DRV you link actually would appear to support my initial, long-ago withdrawn, contention that this petty, vindictive, slimy and toxic "deletionist Wikipedians tried and failed to destroy this article" malarkey should stay off the main page. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Colleagues, I encourage you to suggest hooks for consideration. We needs a hook that will gain consensus, and, respectfully, we need hook suggestions on this page more than we need commentary about the article subject or the deletion controversy, or anything else.

Personally, I still like ALT0 the best, because it's the most click-bait-y, and I think that's what makes a good hook. The purpose of a hook isn't to summarize the article, it's to entice the reader to click on the bold link and read the article, and I think ALT0 does that best of those that have been presented so far (including my own), and it's sourced and otherwise complies with DYK criteria. I do not read ALT0 as throwing anyone under a bus or otherwise being critical of the deletion decision–it's just an interesting fact: there are not many articles whose subjects are notable (at least in part) for having their WP articles deleted. This a unique hook and an excellent candidate for the bottom slot.

That's my pitch for ALT0, which is the one that was suggested in the nom. I understand not everyone will be in favor. To those who are not: which other(s) do you prefer, or can you suggest more?

Thanks to everyone for their participation here! Cheers, Levivich 06:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: Have you read through the prior discussions that might lead to the belief that people are being thrown under the bus? We know the nominator, Andrew Davidson, came to this page through the deletion discussions and has a history of making slimy, battleground remarks about "deletionists", including specifically attacking people in relation to this particular article.[3] It is therefore very difficult not to read this as a continuation of the previous disruption, essentially being a "sore winner" by kicking the people who had previously argued against this topic having a standalone article now that external circumstances have resulted in the article making a comeback. Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: It's no secret I've been an outspoken critic of ARS lately and you, me, and Andrew have been on all sides of all kinds of disagreements in the past, but the battleground is all in the back room, and I think we should leave all the back-room stuff aside and look at it from the reader's point of view. The reader, upon reading the hook, will not have read all the prior deletion discussions, and will not know that Andrew D was the nominator, or be aware of what ARS is, and will not know anything about our deletion processes most likely, and will probably not even be aware that the deletion was a controversial issue at all or understand inclusionist/deletionist. Upon reading the hook, the reader will think that they've never read a hook before that talks about an article being deleted, and they'll want to know what that's about, and they'll click the link. The motivations of the hook-suggester are totally irrelevant to the question of whether it's a good hook or not (it doesn't matter why somebody wrote something, words are words, just like 2+2=4 no matter who writes it or why), and the reader is not going to know any of this wiki-inside-baseball stuff. But all that said, if you don't think ALT0 is the best hook from the reader's perspective, which one do you like better, or do you have any to suggest? Because I'm open to other hooks and I'm sure Andrew D and everyone else is too. Levivich 07:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
If the hook must mention the deletion of the article, then ALT2 would be the much better hook, imho. Unless the reader knows who Clarice Phelps is, or why she is notable, then the deletion of the article about her is unremarkable as articles are deleted daily from Wikipedia for a variety of reasons. ALT2 is hookier because (one may ask) why in the hell would Wikipedia delete an article on "the first African-American woman to help discover a chemical element"? The news isn't the deletion of an article, it's the deletion of an article with such a claim to significance. If I were benevolent dictator, however, this would not be my first choice. I think that the focus should be on the article subject's accomplishments, not on the background processes of Wikipedia and any controversy it stirred up because it detracts focus from the article subject. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • My role here is as the DYK nominator. I have a reasonably long and successful record of nominating articles about pioneering women for DYK. These include other articles written by Jess Wade such as Kim Cobb, Roma Agrawal and Abbie Hutty. As an experienced nominator, my priorities include:
  1. Making the hook short, punchy and unusual, so that it attracts attention on the crowded and busy main page
  2. Having a picture to go with the hook, as this typically doubles the readership
  3. Avoiding rambling, clutter and secondary links which tend to distract from the main subject
I still think that the original hook does this best but, naturally, other editors may have other opinions. In considering these, we should give priority to the main authors of the article in question because they have done the heavy lifting and know the topic best. Respecting their views will also encourage them to do more good work. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The ALT6 hook seems good to me. It meets all the hook criteria and is well supported by the article and sources. Disclaimer: I helped write the article, so I'm not officially a reviewer. Kaldari (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
    Agreed. ALT6 looks fine. (Just spotted this discussion after I was randomly pinged on the article talk page). If people want to move on from the idea that Phelps was not notable, then using a hook implying that her deletion from Wikipedia is the most interesting thing about her is exactly the wrong course of action. If nobody objects then I don't mind signing off ALT6 as good to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
cmt - user:Amakuru, also it's of course not dispositive the bio entry was removed to-and-from mainspace but twice (diff) :~) --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
"twice" is an internal Wikipedia affair not discussed in most of the secondary sources, though. Notability and systemic bias aside, the reason it was deleted a second time was entirely rooted in the disruptive behaviour of the article's recreator and other defenders in violating consensus by recreating exactly the same article after it was deleted at AFD. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Very true, which is all the more reason not to use the "deleted twice" motif in the hook, and to go with something interesting from Phelps's actual achievements.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that the "Wikipedia article" section is now very different from when those hooks were originally presented, such that the article text now no longer supports those hooks (it seems reliable secondary sources never supported them). The article text now points out, quite rightly, that the independent sources available at the time the article was deleted didn't mention Phelps. It may indeed be that the article being deleted from Wikipedia was what prompted independent reliable sources to note Phelps's contribution as they hadn't previously (the take-home being that "Wikipedia deletionists helped resolved systemic bias in the real world"), but lacking a reliable source we can't say that in the article, let alone the DYK hook. I'd be quite happy to just recognize ALT6 immediately. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
It might also be worth noting that Levivich has in the last hour or so edit-warred to insert unsourced and/or Wikipedia-sourced content into the "Wikipedia article" section -- this lack of stability almost certainly disqualifies any reference to the Wikipedia article deletion from being included in the hook. Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Andrew Davidson: Do you have a reliable source for this hook? Moreover, forgive me if I am wrong -- I am not as experienced with DYKs as you are -- but is it standard practice to edit a primary hook after multiple editors have already commented on it and no less than five separate alternates have been proposed? Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Copy-edits are commonly made to hooks as they flow through the many steps of the DYK process. A formal ALT is only appropriate when you have a major change to the nature of the hook, as otherwise you'd get a proliferation of version numbers which would tend to clutter and confuse. See WP:DYKHOOK, "A hook is subject without notice to copy-editing as it moves to the main page. The nature of the DYK process makes it impractical to consult users over every such edit."
As for a supporting source, the Royal Society of Chemistry, seems adequate.
Andrew🐉(talk) 13:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Please, can we move on from these ridiculous WP:NAVEL-gazing hooks mentioning the deletion debacle. I find it frankly astounding, that after so many arguments citing her groundbreaking achievements as reason why she should have an article, and after finally that article is here and ready to be showcased, the best tagline that people can come up with for Ms Phelps is that her Wikipedia article was repeatedly deleted. This is like Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) syndrome all over again - labelled as famous for something that's unrelated to your work and career. We owe it to Ms Phelps to do better than that, and ALT6 is right on the money IMHO - it highlights her major career achievement and why it's groundbreaking.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
WP:NAVEL is irrelevant because its point is that self-reference within articles may be confusing when our content used elsewhere. This is not an issue for DYK hooks because they are ephemeral and only appear on Wikipedia's main page, not in other places. The fact about deletion is notable and seems likely to be interesting to the main page's readership. They are reading Wikipedia and so will wonder what there is about this topic that has caused it to be deleted so often. Perhaps they should read it quickly before it is deleted again? This forbidden fruit aspect generally works well as a hook – see Banned in Boston; the Streisand effect; &c.
The alternative suggestion about being the first X to do Y is not so hooky because it's a cliché at DYK – I have done many such hooks myself. See here where a regular set-builder complains that "Hook writers are resorting to superlatives so frequently that it's impossible to build a prep set with varied language. Right now the majority of prep sets have two to three "firsts" each. I'd like to call on reviewers to ask for more interesting hooks about the subject than that they were just the "first"—especially women hooks."
The alternative fact that I liked was the bit about working in the engine-room of the USS Ronald Reagan. That's a bit of a stretch though as she actually worked at monitoring and controlling its nuclear reactor. Presumably that was done remotely as I doubt that she was physically pushing control rods or crawling around "Jefferies tubes". The actual details are probably classified as a matter of military security and so verification may be difficult.
Andrew🐉(talk) 23:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Weighting and accuracy[edit]

Hi all. In regard to weighting, I believe the article focuses too much on her career where the vast majority of reliable sources centers around this Wikipedia article. I'm wondering everyone else's opinions on restructuring the article with a focus on the article's controversy as covered in reliable sources. Also, there is an issue with the claim that she is the first African American woman to contribute to discovering an element. Though it seems likely, I don't think we should be saying it definitively when, of the three sources cited, one of them is a press release from her employer (not secondary/independent), one simply quotes that press release, and the third says "she is thought" to be the first. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree the article controversy section could be expanded beyond the two sentences that it is now. As to the "first" claim, if NASA would be a reliable source for "first person to walk on the moon", why isn't ORNL a reliable source for "first AA woman to help discover an element"? Levivich 22:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
The former was written about in hundreds of independent news outlets and watched by millions. This is her employer, and one of the independent news outlets cited only says "she is thought" to be the first, which leads me to believe we should change it to that. Vermont (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. Physics Today: "thought to be the first". Undark Magazine: thought to be the first. WaPo/Jess Wade: "the first African American woman to be part of team that discovered a superheavy element". I have to agree that per WP-philosophy the employer is to avoided for info like that. Physics Today seems weighty to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
ORNL and IUPAC say "first", and I think they're very reliable authorities on the matter, but nevertheless no objection here to adding "thought to be" or some other qualifier to the text. Levivich 15:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
My guess is that nobody really checked. American people "to contribute to discovering an element" must be thousands of names, and many names may never have been recorded. Again, guessing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Kit Chapman (the author of Superheavy) researched the claim and found it to be plausible: Kaldari (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
This is of course always been the issue, she really was not notable untill this all blew up.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I think posting a timeline of who published what and where is going to be required, before any solid agreement on whether this claim should be included at all, much less the form of wording. Do people agree that is a sensible way forward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Dunbarton (talkcontribs) 16:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as we need to know what is the most common way to refer to her.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

"First" timeline

  1. April 25 Claire Jarvis, Undark Magazine [4] "Clarice Phelps may have been the first black woman to help discover an element ... The nuclear scientist is thought to be the first African-American woman to help discover a chemical element"
  2. April 29 Daily Dot [5] "Clarice Phelps likely was the first Black woman to have contributed to the discovery of a new element ... Clarice Phelps, likely the first Black woman to have contributed to the discovery of a new element ..."
  3. May 1 Kit Chapman, author of Superheavy, tweets "I literally *wrote the book* on the history of transuranium element discovery. I've met all the teams. She is the first African American woman." [6]
  4. May 5 Chemical & Engineering News [7] "... Phelps is possibly the first black woman to help discover a chemical element."
  5. June 2 IUPAC [8] "She is the first African-American women to be involved with the discovery of an element, tennessine (Element 117)." (announcement)
  6. June 3 ORNL "Phelps was selected [by IUPAC] to represent einsteinium and cited 'for her outstanding commitment to research and public engagement, as well as being an important advocate for diversity. She is the first African-American women to be involved with the discovery of an element, tennessine.'" [9]
  7. June 9 Chemical & Engineering News "Clarice Phelps is a chemist at ORNL widely thought to be the first black woman to help discover an element, tennessine." [10]
  8. July 3 Chemistry World "Phelps, who works at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US, is quite possibly the first female African–American scientist to be part of a team that discovered a superheavy element, tennessine" [11]
  9. July 23 Oak Ridge Today "ORNL engineer the first African American woman involved in discovery of an element ... A nuclear engineer at Oak Ridge National Laboratory is the first African American woman to be involved with the discovery of an element, tennessine, the lab said Tuesday ... Phelps was cited 'for her outstanding commitment to research and public engagement, as well as being an important advocate for diversity. She is the first African American woman to be involved with the discovery of an element, tennessine,' the press release said." [12]
  10. July 29 The Oak Ridger "ORNL nuclear engineer Clarice Phelps, of the Isotope & Fuel Cycle Technology Division, is the first African American woman to be involved with the discovery of an element, tennessine, according to information provided earlier this week by the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory ... Phelps was cited 'for her outstanding commitment to research and public engagement, as well as being an important advocate for diversity,' the ORNL release stated. 'She is the first African American woman to be involved with the discovery of an element, tennessine.'" [13]
  11. August 7 WBIR-TV "ORNL said she is the first African American woman to be associated with the discovery of a new periodic table element ... 'It was neat to find out later on that I was the first African-American woman to be associated with the discovery of an element,' she [Phelps] said. 'It's an accomplishment that I can really be proud of.'" [14]
  12. August 17 Kit Chapman, BBC Science Focus "The Oak Ridge team (including Clarice Phelps, the first black American woman to discover an element) ..." [15]
  13. September 30 Claire Jarvis, Physics Today "She [Phelps] is thought to be the first African American woman to help discover a chemical element ... Phelps, who is thought to be the first African American woman to help discover a chemical element" [16]
  14. December 11 Phelps in a podcast interview "I was announced and had the privilege of being the first African American woman to be involved with element discovery." [17] at 15:23 (discussion of "first" claim starts at 14:10)
  • Personally, I think IUPAC, ORNL, and Chapman, are sufficiently-reliable authorities on the matter (especially IUPAC and ORNL), plus Phelps herself, and BBC Science Focus, and they all state it definitively ("is the first"), so we should state it definitively in wikivoice ("is the first"). That's my !vote, YMMV. Cheers, Levivich 03:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Interesting list. I think there's enough hedging in decent sources for us to use a qualifier, I'm ok with "thought to be" or perhaps "is likely", it should hint "she probably is." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • As I recall people who have read supererhavy have said it does not in fact include the claim saying ""His name was James Harris. And he was the first African American to discover an element... He was not the last. In 2009 Clarice Phelps aided in the purification of berkelium, which led to the discovery of element 117 and conformation of element 115"". Its clear a lot of RS hedge their bets, and even the man who (litterly) wrote the book on the subject does not make the claim in the book.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • If we're going to do a qualifier, I would suggest "widely considered to be" or "considered to be". Or, alternatively, "According to IUPAC, she is the first ..." IUPAC is the authority on element discovery, and the source of ORNL's statement, and ORNL is the source for many of the other RSes, so I think this claim has been "verified" by IUPAC, and thus could be attributed to them. The reader can decide for themselves whether or not they believe IUPAC. Levivich 16:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • If notable at all, she is notable solely for the controversy around the attempt to create a Wikipedia article on her despite a lack of professional achievements and notability. The article needs to reflect that, and to focus on the Wikipedia article controversy both in the body and the lead section. The argument that she "discovered an element" or had any notable role in such a discovery has already been refuted countless times. --Tataral (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Tataral, could you link to one of those times it has been "refuted", and also what about the 14 examples above? Are you saying IUPAC is incorrect in making the claim? What RS disputes IUPAC's claim? Levivich 04:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
That she helped discoverer an element has (to my knowledge) never once been refuted. That she is the first African american woman to have does not has been questioned (or at least caveated), not refuted. But it is also true that before the wikistorm she had been practically ignored by the media. Thus we have the bizarre situation where someone might have been notable for an achievement who was ignored until the press could have a rage boner about Wikipedia, at which point they suddenly found her notable. Thus she is in fact more notable for not having a Wikipedia page then for possible being the first African american woman to help discover an element. (Soapbox alert) which says more about the media than it does us.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Her alleged role in the element discovery was found to be of a non-notable nature in multiple discussions (AfD, deletion review); she was found to be a technician who did her job and had a small part in a large project, without meeting the notability threshold based on those activities. Being involved, among hundreds of people, in such an event doesn't mean that she "discovered an element" if she had no particularly important/notable role, demonstrated by reliable sources. We should avoid vague expressions like "'help' discover an element," which only serve to obfuscate her actual role. --Tataral (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Contributing a token of technical expertise to large projects involving multiple participants is how science is done. Lone scientists striking heroic poses looking through a test tube in the rising sun is cute, but it is just folklore. Rama (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
No it was not found "not notable", the article was. If two days after the last AFD 15 magazines articles had appeared about her role it would have become notable. IF RS say it so do we, so problem was RS did not consider it (not us) notable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Image deletion[edit]

Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:PF Bk249 team.png

Because WP hadn't embarrassed itself enough already. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Also Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clarice Phelps.jpg Levivich 22:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the ORNL copyright statement saying documents are in the public domain unless otherwise noted is pretty clear, so regardless of what another wiki (Commons) wants to do with their files, I've locally uploaded the ORNL headshot (File:Clarice Phelps ORNL headshot.jpg) and added it to the infobox. It can be discussed at FFD if need be. Levivich 05:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion now ongoing at FFD. The discussion should be closed in about seven days. Levivich 16:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    • If it is going to be this difficult, please leave the photograph off the page. Phelps doesn't deserve the level of harassment and rubbish she is getting for this from Wikipedia editors, she didn't ask for any of this. Jesswade88 (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
      • This is not harassment, but Wikipedia and commons‘ admirable very conservative approach to compliance with copyright best practices. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
        • From the Commons community perspective, there are plenty of folks who are aiming to find the right way of keeping these files with a credible copyright release. This is not an obvious case, and the fact that conflicting emails are held within OTRS means that the outcome has to be understandable for everyone interested in the photographs. Keep in mind that Commons is a public respository that all reusers must be able to have confidence in, not only what feels sufficient for use in Wikipedia articles. -- (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

For anyone interested in these and other photographs from OakRidge, please have a look at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-OakRidge. There are 57 photographs that appear likely to be deleted due to unresolvable issues with copyright validation. -- (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

bio entry rmv'd (but) twice?[edit]

  1. "wade" draft rmv'd (via RfD) 4 Feb 2019
  2. "professed-compromise" draft rmv'd citing abv 27 Apr
  3. "rama"[reinstatement of orig. wade]draft rmv'd (ditto; plus its text mvd to wp:Draft space)
    BRB w dates/diffs &tc ok?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Here is the professed compromise draft 27 April 2019 at the way back machine.
This capture 28 April includes admin action log entry 27 April 2019 Amakuru deleted page Clarice E. Phelps.
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Rama's arb evidence pg has a post w this timeline:
  1. 31 August: Page created by Jesswade88.
  2. 11 February: Deleted by TonyBallioni following first deletion discussion. Deletion discussion was endorsed on 18 Feb.
  3. 3 April: Created again by Jesswade88.
  4. 4 April: Deleted again by TonyBallioni per CSD G4 and salted following second deletion discussion.
  5. 26 April: Draft:Clarice E. Phelps was created by Hodgdon's secret garden.
  6. 27 April: Draft moved to mainspace Clarice E. Phelps by admin DGG.*
  7. 27 April: Amakuru deleted the Clarice E. Phelps article as it had been tagged as {{db-repost}} by Tataral and the conditions for that seemed to be met.
  8. 29 April: Rama undeleted the original article at Clarice Phelps.
  9. 29 April: Fram moved the article to Draft:Clarice Phelps without leaving a redirect, after the opening of this case request.
    *project's draft-reviewer extraordinaire user:DGG (whom I'd characterize as otherwise deletionist at heart if prognosticative of subject's ult. notability via observations of the brewing brouhaha w/in this particular corner of the Zeitgeist) ok'd a draft which had toned down certain claims to scientific notability while also referencing various recognitions of the subject's educational outreaches--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
(Making a general point having been tagged above) - Yes, perhaps it was deleted three or four times, that would depend on the definition. But in any case I think focusing on this sort of detail is beyond the scope of what the Wikipedia section should be discussing. If the Wikipedia episode is worthy of discussion then it should focus on what outside secondary sources are saying about the matter, which was mostly focused on the perceived gender bias on the site, not on the minutiae of who deleted what and when. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I'm not sure what HSG is saying here. The edit summary, "its happening but twice not dispositive" is not clear to me either. But the issue seems to be the number of time the article was deleted. I went through the details to update the article history above. That template has to be expanded manually but the details are:
Action date link result
PROD 1 February 2019 kept
AfD 4 February 2019 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps deleted
DRV 11 February 2019 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 11 endorsed
CSD 3 April 2019 kept
AfD 4 April 2019 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps (2nd nomination) speedily deleted
CSD 29 April 2019 moved to draft with no redirect
DRV 1 May 2019 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 May 1 endorse
DRV 31 January 2020 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 31 restore

So there have been 1 ProD, 2 AfD, 2 CSD and 3 DRV. There were two deletions, as recorded in the deletion log, and also a move to draft without leaving a redirect, which is debatable. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  • What I'm also seeing from Amakuru's timeline is that there was a separate draft page which was moved to mainspace and deleted there so that's another CSD and a third deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
    user:Andrew Davidson The timeline was posted by HSG not by me, but yes that's correct. There was a recreation at the alternative title Clarice E. Phelps, which I deleted. It's also debatable whether the draftification counted as a third delete of the main article - functionally it's equivalent, as its removed from main space in either case. So mainSpace coverage of Phelps has been removed a total of four times.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Have any reliable secondary sources been found that actually say any number of times "the article" (under whatever number of alternate names) was deleted? I am very tempted to replace the text

The article was created by British physicist and Wikipedia editor Jess Wade on 31 August 2018 before being deleted on 11 February 2019; Wade recreated it on 3 April 2019, before it was again deleted and "salted" (protected from creation) by the same administrator who had initially deleted; it was later restored by another administrator on 29 April 2019, before being moved to draftspace three hours later.

with the the text

The article had been created by British physicist and Wikipedia editor Jess Wade.

and lacking any reliable sources that verify this content I intend to do so.
It seems that secondary sources are unwilling to throw the so-called "deletionist" Wikipedians under the bus for following procedures that are in place for a very good reason (defending the encyclopedia from self-promotion like this) by implying that the article was deleted multiple times despite the subject clearly having been demonstrated to be notable. The fact of the matter is that at the time of the first AFD (the only time AFD was the proper forum, since the first [several?] recreation[s?] was [were?] clearly a violation of policy, making speedy deletion the proper procedure) the reliable independent sources didn't credit, or even mention, Phelps, and so it is entirely possible that by deleting the article the English Wikipedia community drew attention to this oversight on the part of said sources.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Please do not make that edit. Please read the sources cited in the article, which will answer your question. (They go into decent detail about the deletions and deletion discussion. IIRC, Undark, Chemistry World, and Daily Dot are the ones I recall with the most depth.) Levivich (lulz) 03:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich: If "the sources cited in the article" support the content in question, why are they not cited in a manner that implies as much? Currently the text in question contains a single citation, which is a link to the page's Wikipedia deletion log, and which I tagged as being insufficient three days ago. I'm not going to read through a bunch of unspecified sources to see whether or not they support the content I have challenged: the burden is on you to do that. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Why is the burden on me? If you’re not going to read the sources, then don’t make significant changes to the content. We have {{fv}} if you need it. Levivich (lulz) 04:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The WP:BURDEN is always on the party wishing to include content, never on the party wishing to remove it. That being said, when I wrote the above I suspected you may have been the author of said text, for which incorrect suspicion I apologize. I am now going to remove the text per not only BURDEN but also WP:BRD. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Okay, the above bizarre comment by Levivich made me suspicious that he was the one who added the text in question, so I went to WikiBlame, and found out that it was actually added with this edit. User:Miraclepine is a relatively new editor (account registered in August 2018, but only around 3,500 edits before August 2019), so I'll let the potential user conduct issue fly, but I didn't know the content had been boldly added, without explanation, only a few hours before I tagged it; if I had, I would have simply removed it outright rather than tagging. I will therefore remove it now pending sources and consensus to include it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: To be fair, my favorite part was bringing up Fram. ミラP 04:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I mean, that's an interesting footnote to the whole affair, but it is not really relevant, and almost certainly would not be supported by any reliable secondary sources (which might give the usernames of those involved but would surely not draw connections to unrelated on-wiki incidents in which they were involved...).
@Levivich: Would you mind actually doing what was requested of you? In response your cite-bombing the content after re-adding it, I opened all of them to Ctrl+F for "salt", "protect" and "draft" -- the fact that the article was protected from repeated re-creation is verified by this source but not apparently any of the others, while the fact that it was moved to the draftspace is not apparently found in any of the secondary sources. Additionally, no source apparently talks about Wade "recreating" the article -- the only one that mentions recreation is the Daily Dot piece, but that just puts the word in scare-quotes and doesn't attribute the recreation to Wade anywhere. This kind of sloppy editing on your part makes me very reluctant to assume that the sources verify the rest of the content.
Could you please add the Daily Dot citation to the "protected from re-creation" text specifically, remove the citation bomb at the end of the paragraph, add the specific citations to the specific content they support, and remove all other content that cannot be found in any of the cited sources? Then we can have a discussion as to whether it is appropriate to cite the Wikipedia deletion log for the dates and the admin status of those who implemented the article deletion...
Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
What is a "citation bomb"? Rama (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@Rama: WP:CITEBOMB. I guess in this case I am using it in a slightly different sense, since it is kinda overkill to call four citations a "bomb", but what I meant was that a string of citations were clumsily tagged onto the end of a paragraph of text, and even though some of the citations probably support some of the content, it is generally unhelpful and should not have been done in the manner that it was.
The fact that Levi blank-reverted without, apparently, checking any of the sources himself, while a talk page discussion was ongoing and both BURDEN and BRD were in favour of keeping the material out, and that he didn't even leave a message on the talk page explaining why he was doing this, are other factors that, while they might justify imprecise use of terminology on my part, certainly make what I did the lesser of two evils. :P
Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Why we don't use Wikipedia as a citation[edit]

Levivich - It took more than a week for any editor to remember that this article used to exist as Clarice E. Phelps at one point as well, but that fact escaped the memory (or perhaps attention) of Andrew Davidson* when they suggested the hook that ... was deleted twice from Wikipedia. The article was in fact deleted at least thrice, twice as Clarice Phelps and once as Clarice E. Phelps. And that is if you exclude draftification as a deletion-process.

Why is that significant? Well for one, that fact did not escape the attention of Katrina Krämer, author of the Chemistry World article being used as a citation: Arguing whether Phelps met Wikipedia’s notability standards – rules that govern whether a person should have a page or not – editors first deleted her page, then restored it, then deleted it again. Her page has been deleted a total of three times. With every deletion, the discussion became more heated. And for two, we do not use Wikipedia as a source for one very good reason: it is trivially easy to fuck it up.

Nearly the entirety of: on 31 August 2018 before being deleted on 11 February 2019; Wade recreated it on 3 April 2019, before it was again deleted and "salted" (protected from creation) by the same administrator who had initially deleted; it was later restored by another administrator on 29 April 2019, before being moved to draftspace three hours later hinges on the improper use of Wikipedia as a reliable source. The only bit that I could verify across any of the cited sources is the deletion of 11 February 2019 which can be cited to the Undark article. As such, I am re-removing it, and reminding you that this is a BLP (read the unambiguous notice when editing that any contentious material not cited to a reliable source must be immediately removed - emphasis in the original). Mr rnddude (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: I am not chiding Andrew for this error, but using it as an example of how easy it is to introduce an error into an article when citing Wikipedia, even Wikipedia logs, in an article. That error could have very well made it onto the front page of Wikipedia. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with your title. I haven't read the rest of your comments yet. Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Failed verification?[edit]

Since we’re not using the FV tag and deleting content instead, would any editor(s) who thinks the content fails verification to a secondary source please list the individual facts that they believe fails verification to a secondary source? Thanks. Levivich (lulz) 16:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Here you go:
... on 31 August 2018 ... - the best that I could get as to the original creation of the article is from Undark: Phelps’ entry was created last September by Jess Wade.
... Wade recreated it on 3 April 2019 ... - the recreation and redeletions are mentioned in Chemistry World and The Daily Dot, but the dates and actors are not.
... before it was again deleted and and "salted" (protected from creation) by the same administrator who had initially deleted ... - creation-protection is mentioned by the Daily Dot, but the Wikiterm "salting" is not. You removed the struck through portion in your copy-editing, but it failed verification as well. DD: The “move log” read that an administrator had “protected” the page because it had been “Repeatedly recreated” and was “in violation of a deletion discussion that was upheld at deletion review.”
... it was later restored by another administrator on 29 April 2019, before being moved to draftspace three hours later - I found no mention of either this restoration by Rama or the draftification.
That about sums up what failed verification. Oh, and Katrina Krämer's article states that the article was deleted a total of three times. That may be worth including directly. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for this. So the final recreation/move-to-draftspace can go (for lack of a secondary source). We can strike the term "salted" and just say creation protected—that’s wiki lingo anyway that I think isn’t really necessary. Everything else looks like it’s verified, except for dates and actors. I don’t think actors are encyclopedically significant enough to include. Do you (or anyone else) object to the primary source log being used to supply dates? Levivich (lulz) 01:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it is less-than-ideal to be citing a Wikipedia log even just for the dates, but I can live with it as long as no reference to a section that uses such a source is being made on the main page -- would you withdraw your support for the initial proposed DYK hook and ALTs 1-4 (sorry, I can't seem to find the actual text of ALT4, so I'm assuming just in case that it's one of the Wikipedia article deletion ones) and instead support either ALT5 or ALT6 if I agree to using the Wikipedia deletion log as a citation for the dates? (Note that I actually don't think we need to include all the exact dates -- "September 2018" and "11 February 2019" are more than enough, and they are both verified in this source.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)