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. Setting aside the confirmed sockpuppets and brand new accounts, there is little support for keeping this article and plenty of support for deleting it based on a lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. RL0919 (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Survival Edge Technology (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)

This is a WP:NEO not in common use. No references outside of Rahul Banerjee's blog for this term and I was unable to find any additional. PROD removed by article author without improvement. Article author acknowledges this term is not in common use yet. shoy (reactions) 13:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source analysis after the changes mentioned below: #1 is Banerjee himself. #2 and 7 are Medium blogs (not WP:RS). #8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 21 are blog posts (not RS). #5 was written by Banerjee's wife and posted with no editorial control. #3, 4, 6, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20 do not mention the term at all. shoy (reactions) 14:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a new concept. It describes the practical steps that need to be taken to solve the very important problems of water, energy, global warming and agriculture crises that are threatening the very existence of the human race on planet. There is enough work on the ground on this even though not much has yet been written on it by many independent writers. Consequently, this page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavier2209 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC) — Xavier2209 (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy.[reply]

• I am the creator of this page and I found the objection of a lack of third party references to be correct. So, I have added third party references to the term "Survival Edge Technology". Therefore now the objection raised has been addressed and this page should not be deleted.IKPlusOne (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)IKPlusOne[reply]

The original author of the article has added new third party sources in it that cite "survival edge technology" and its implementation and so the objection of this term being a neologism without external third party citations has been addressed and therefore the article is not a fit candidate for deletion anymore. Xavier2209 (talk) 06:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Xavier2209 — Xavier2209 (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy.[reply]

• The sources cited appear to include a fair range of publications. Also I'm curious as to what constitutes "common" usage. I see no substantial reason for the page to be deleted - Arjunvenkatraman — Arjunvenkatraman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Arjunvenkatraman (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. There's an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IKPlusOne. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following this page for a long time, and i can concur that lot of third party references have been added and debunk the deletion logic. I recommend removal of the deletion tag. Akshatver (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Akshatver — Akshatver (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy.[reply]

• Delete. Very few of the sources provided meet the project's standards. Most are self-published (Medium user pages, Blogspot) or are directly connected to Banerjee, or both. There are better quality sources cited in some cases, like legitimate scholarly journals, but those sources do not mention this topic specifically, only the general background concepts (the essence of a WP:NEO objection). The best quality directly relevant source seems to be India Water Portal. But the cited content there has a disclaimer ("Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of India Water Portal.") that makes me question whether this material went through that site's normal editorial process. I am certain that the people employing this neologism are doing good and important work, but Wikipedia's standards of inclusion are based on different criteria, which I don't think this meets. The closing administrator will likely also want to note that all of the supporters above have very few, if any, contributions outside this topic (or, often, outside this AFD). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ossifrage's assessment, which I did double check, and can confirm that the sources are not reliable. Utopes (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article in question has four references to the alleged neologism 'survival edge technology'. Of this only one is by Rahul Banerjee while the three others are by third-party sources. There are a total of seventeen other references for the matter written describing the term and of this only eight are to blog posts or articles by Rahul Banerjee. Thus, overall there are enough third party sources in the article in support of the term and so it cannot be characterised as a neologism. That these third party sources are blog posts that have been self-published do not in anyway mean that their quality is poor. So I would not recommend its deletion at all.BrownMaverick (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC) — BrownMaverick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — BrownMaverick (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. There's an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IKPlusOne. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe article is well referenced now as additional third party citations have been added. The disclaimer entered in the India Water Portal article is to protect it from litigation and not because there is no peer review. There is moderation and editing before an article is published in India Water Portal. So there is enough reliable citation in support of the article. Xavier2209 (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Xavier2209 — Xavier2209 (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy.[reply]

• Keep I am on Wikipedia since 2016 and have created close to a hundred articles and edited hundreds more as can be easily verified. So I am well versed in the rules. It is in this sequence of my legitimate activity on Wikipedia that I had created this article also. The rule is that there should not be any original writing in Wikipedia and an article should be based on other third party sources. In that sense, this article initially was deficient in that it had fewer third party sources and relied mostly on the writings of Banerjee in his blog. However, once this was pointed out, I have later revised this article and added other third party sources. Even if some of these sources are self published the important thing to see is whether the content of these sources is of good quality or not and whether they support the matter of the article. Thus, the rule that there should not be original write ups and that the matter in the article should be properly supported by third party sources is met and so this article should not be deleted.IKPlusOne (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC) IKPlusOne[reply]
• Note for the closing administrator. There may have been canvassing when it comes to the participation in this AfD. While I am assuming good faith out of all of the participants, may of the "keep" rationals involve a form of pressure to keep? I refer to such comments along the lines of "Therefore now the objection raised has been addressed and this page should not be deleted", "the article is not a fit candidate for deletion anymore", and "I recommend removal of the deletion tag". In my opinion, the sources added are still not sufficient, but that's not up to me to make the final decision on. Just be aware that there may be an ulterior motive at play? Utopes (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also invite the closing admin to look through the contributions of the accounts !voting on this AFD. shoy (reactions) 14:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Note for the closing administratorThere is no pressure to keep. The words used to favour keeping do not constitute pressure but are opinions expressed without any ulterior motive whatsoever. A genuine effort is being made to broaden the knowledge base. Even if the article does get deleted from Wikipedia it will not affect the further development of the subject in theory and practice will it?!!! Eventually the decision will be taken in accordance with well settled policy. Policy is paramount and not the number of votes so there is no question of canvassing. If the closing administrator feels that the independent sources cited are insufficient or not up to the mark, the article will be deleted and that is that. Where is the need for acrimony? Xavier2209 (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Xavier2209 — Xavier2209 (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy. KeepThere are enough third party references to the subject of the article, some published in reputable websites and others self published. The reliability of these third party sources is being questioned by fellow editors. However, I feel that these sources are of good quality and provenance.Akshatver (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Akshatver — Akshatver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Akshatver (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy.[reply]

• Delete Regardless of the importance of addressing climate change, this specific article is promoting a neologism that has no established notability. The sources are a mixed of self-published material, content without editorial oversight, and superfluous items that may pertain to the theme of climate change but do not indicate adoption of this term itself. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources to indicate that this neologism is notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: article about a neologism, sourced primarily to blogs, and obviously created mainly to promote Rahul Banerjee (an article created by the same user who created this article, and like this article added to mainly by the creator and their now blocked socks...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though the article could certainly use improvement, I am surprised that people, who are otherwise quite knowledgeable and experienced, have voted 'Delete' without sufficient interaction with professionals in the field, who would find the term far from new, unknown, or unaccepted. The term 'Survival Edge Technology' refers to use of simple and widely accessible technology as an enabler. While this idea has been quite popular in the field as well as in academia, it is referred to as ′Gandhian Technology′, an obviously ambiguous and somewhat political term. Hence most professionals, at least in India, welcomingly accept and understand this term. - Yashvant.ritesh (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One tiny little problem; the article presents no evidence of the popularity and wide acceptance that you allude to. Please read WP:V. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Essay on someone's neologism. EEng 15:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All the sources which actually mention the term were written by Rahul Banerjee or his wife (anar-kali is his personal blog), or by Medium blog posters with one post apiece, created after the AfD started. Cheers, gnu57 16:13, 7 November 2019 (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.