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 redirect to David M. Eddy. Since general consensus was that the company was not independently notable, but Mr. Eddy was, and since that article has since been created, then a redirect is indicated. That article may need eyes to ensure that it does not become a coatrack article for the company, however - as it appears to be becoming already. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedes, Inc.[edit]

Archimedes, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article on a four year old company. Fails the notability guideline and the WP:ORG guideline specifically. The article also involves some very concerning conflict of interest issues. The creator of the article works as a "communications consultant", and has admitted on Twitter that he was paid to write the article. Article lists citations, but there are trivial references, that fail to meet WP:N. res Laozi speak 12:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For any users who want a specific analysis of each citation, here it is:
  1. First citation is about the founder of the company, trivial mention of a program called Archimedes. Doesn't mention the company at all.
  2. Again, focused on the founder of the company and a program of his. There is a trivial, one sentence mention of the company.
  3. Main page of the company. Not a reliable source.
  4. Another trivial mention. Just a single sentence.
  5. An interview from a relatively obscure publication. Not sure if it's notable in the field.
  6. Considered trivial by WP:ORG standards. Mentions that the company has recieved a grant, then focuses on the founder and the computer model.
  7. Minor mention on the computer model and its creator. No mention of the company.
  8. Award for one of the founders of the company. Very trivial mention of the company.
  9. Considered trivial by WP:ORG standards. Mentions that the company has recieved a grant, then focuses on the founder and the computer model.

--res Laozi speak 13:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not seem to include "peacock" language and it appears to be properly sourced. Of course, any editors with criticisms of the company (properly sourced) can add them in at any time, including now (I see that none have chosen to do so...). Regarding notability: The company's founder and CEO invented the term "evidence-based" (and that is the focus of the company's work); as sourced in the article, the major RWJ grant just awarded to the company is its largest ever in this field and prompted the RWJ president to write, “Archimedes is the gold standard in healthcare modeling”; and the company has been featured in Wired and Business Week (as cited in the article), among other notable publications. The criticisms raised above could provide direction for improving some parts of the article. But many are very questionable, such as: "Not sure if it's notable in the field" (It is...), or attempts to somehow separate the company's major work ("The Archimedes Model") from the company itself ("Archimedes, Inc.") They do not add up to sufficient grounds for deletion of an informative and useful entry.12.179.50.234 (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) The founder of the company did not invent the term "evidence-based". Gordon Guyatt coined the term, and on a date the predates when the CEO supposedly did. Also, notability is not inherited, it doesn't matter who the founder is, this company is not notable. 2) The lack of peacock language has no reflection on the notability of an article. 3) It "appears to be properly sourced" but, by Wikipedia's reliable source standards, it clearly does not. The Wired article indicates that the computer model (created in 2004) predates the formation of the company (in 2006), and as such, notability is not inherited. In the BW and Wired articles, the company, by itself, was not featured. The citations are considered to be trivial mentions by WP:ORG standards, which are not sufficient to satsfy notability guidelines. 4) Not a specialist, can't take your word for it that a news site is notable in a specific field, you'll need to verify it. But the point is moot either way. The WP:RS guideline prefers "mainstream news sources", which three of the citations are not. --res Laozi speak 14:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: At the time this article was created, the Wikipedia article on "evidence-based" clearly (and for quite some time) identified Dr. Eddy as the inventor of the term. That article has been changed within the last few days (see edits to that page) with no discussion about said changes on that article's discussion page. There is a proper place, I am sure, for working out that issue.Danieldis47 (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the company's notability, I see no response to the raised point that (as sourced) the company received a record-breaking grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (as well as the praise from that foundation, as also noted above).Danieldis47 (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Sources clearly indicate that it was Gordon Guyatt who coined the term "evidence-based". And either way, the point is moot. The subject up for discussion is the company, not the founder.--res Laozi speak 13:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the point is moot, friend, then why did you raise it? Thanks.Danieldis47 (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because you (and the IP, which is likely an associate of yours) brought it up first! I'm merely responding to it. ;) --res Laozi speak 15:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Serious concerns must be raised about the nominator’s “list of concerns,” including (new comments in italics):

• First citation is about the founder of the company, trivial mention of a program called Archimedes. Doesn't mention the company at all. “Trivial mention” would appear to be inaccurate. The term “Archimedes” appears at least seven times in the article, including this lengthy passage: “Eddy dubbed the model Archimedes and tested it by comparing it with two dozen real trials. One clinical study compared cholesterol-lowering statin drugs to a placebo in diabetics. After 4 1/2 years, the drugs reduced heart attacks by 35%. The exact same thing happened in Eddy's simulated patients. "The Archimedes model is just fabulous in the validation studies," says the University of Michigan's Herman. The team then put Archimedes to work on a tough, real problem: how best to treat diabetes in people who have additional aliments. "One thing not yet adequately embraced by evidence-based medicine is what to do for someone with diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and depression," explains Kaiser's Wallace. Doctors now typically try to treat the most pressing problems. "But we fail to pick the right ones consistently, so we have misdirected utilization and a great deal of waste," he says. Kaiser Permanente's Dr. Jim Dudl had a counterintuitive suggestion. With diabetics, doctors assume that keeping blood sugar levels low and consistent is the best way to ward off problems such as heart disease. But Dudl wondered what would happen if he flipped it around, aiming treatment at the downstream problems. The idea is to give patients a trio of generic medicines: aspirin, a cholesterol-lowering statin, and drugs called ACE inhibitor. Using Archimedes and thousands of virtual patients, Eddy and Schlessinger compared the traditional approach with the drug combination. The model took about a half-hour to simulate a 30-year trial, and showed that the three-drug combination was "cost- and life-saving," says Kaiser's Wallace. The benefits far surpassed "what can be achieved with aggressive glucose control." Kaiser Permanente docs switched their standard of care for diabetes, adding these drugs to other interventions. It is too early to declare a victory, but the experience with patients seems to be mimicking Eddy's computer model. "It goes against our mental picture of the disease," says Wallace. But it also makes sense, he adds. "Cardiovascular disease is the worst complication of diabetes -- and what people die of." Eddy readily concedes that this example is a small beginning. In its current state of development, Archimedes is like "the Wright brothers' plane. We're off the sand and flying to Raleigh." But it won't be long, he says, "before we're offering transcontinental flights, with movies."

• Again, focused on the founder of the company and a program of his. There is a trivial, one sentence mention of the company. “A program of his” is the Archimedes Model, which is the basis and purpose of the work of Archimedes, Inc. (as the sources explain). I’m not sure what is gained by attempting to blur this actuality.

• An interview from a relatively obscure publication. Not sure if it's notable in the field. “Managed Care Magazine publishes a peer-reviewed managed care publication that serves the professional, business, clinical education, and information needs of managed care decision makers. The company’s circulation includes medical directors, pharmacy directors, physicians, pharmacists, and other executive titles in HMO/PPO, home health care, nursing home, hospital, group practice, and integrated health care organizations.” Bloomberg Businessweek: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=30085500

• Considered trivial by WP:ORG standards. Mentions that the company has received a grant, then focuses on the founder and the computer model. The topic of the article is the awarding of a grant to Archimedes, Inc. The article makes clear that the grant was not given to an individual, and that it was not given to a computer model. Indeed, the title of the article is, “Archimedes' new benefactor” – a direct reference to the company. I must admit, this “point of concern” seems more than a bit strained.

• Minor mention on the computer model and its creator. No mention of the company. That is (rather clearly) because this source is used for a brief section of the article that focuses on the Archimedes founder and CEO.

• Award for one of the founders of the company. Very trivial mention of the company. Again, that is because this source is used for a brief section of the article that focuses on the Archimedes founder and CEO.

• Considered trivial by WP:ORG standards. Mentions that the company has recieved a grant, then focuses on the founder and the computer model. The topic of the article is the awarding of a grant to Archimedes, Inc. The article makes clear that the grant was not given to an individual, and that it was not given to a computer model.

Thank you. Danieldis47 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Trivial mention" is not trivial in the layman's sense, but as outlined in WP:ORG, the criteria of which this article does not meet. You repeat your argument that the notability of the founder of the company and his computer model (which again, predates the founding of the company), somehow transfers that notability to his company. But notability is not inherited, the subject under discussion must independently be notable, which you have yet to established. Your arguments may justify the creation of an article on the founder of the company, for his previous work in the medical field, but not an article on his company, which is just four years old.--res Laozi speak 13:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of notability, you still have not addressed the well-sourced fact that the company, Archimedes, Inc., received a record-setting grant from the United States' largest philanthropy devoted exclusively to health and health care. What say you, friend? Thanks. Danieldis47 (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you accept my other rebuttals? But moving forward, "record-setting" is highly exaggerated. The source notes that the grant was unusual for the specific foundation (there are other similar foundations in the United States, and the source indicates that, while it is a large one, it is not the largest). It's a stretch to morph that fairly mundane statement into "record-setting", and there's nothing online to back it up. Not even your citations mention it breaking any records.--res Laozi speak 15:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that several of the points you raised have some merit and would be very useful in improving this article. I must say that you do appear to be working very, very hard to present as many criticisms - tenuous or otherwise - of the article as one could possibly imagine. (For example, must we argue "record-setting" to death? I certainly did not make that stuff up, you know. We could debate a point like this for pages and pages...) I do admire your tenacity, anyway. Cheers! Danieldis47 (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit one thing. I find paid editing, in general, to be of poor taste, since it undermines a NPOV. There have been so many egregious examples of it on Wikipedia; hence why it doesn't enjoy much support among the community.--res Laozi speak 16:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite understandable. Danieldis47 (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly honest, I'm more concerned that you're being paid to edit Wikipedia, and I'm tempted to ignore your arguments on the basis you're being paid to make them. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One would have guessed. It is my understanding that Wikipedia has chosen not to prohibit paid writing. Wikipedia could change that policy, but it has (for whatever reasons) not done so. So that concern strikes me as a potential bias that can easily distract from an honest appraisal of an article on its actual merits, per current Wikipedia guideline. (Note: Whether I am paid or not, I certainly do my best to follow Wikipedia rules.) I'm curious: Is there any solid research to actually show that a paid article is more likely to be sub-standard? (I have not seen it…) To assume so would, I think, break a highly complex issue down to either-or black-white thinking that does not align well with the real world. (For example, would not a paid editor have even more incentive to write high-quality articles? If he didn't, and his articles were deleted, then how could he market himself? Or this: I babysit my friend's kids so he can write on Wikipedia about an issue that concerns us both. Is that friend "paid"? And if it’s easier for me, being wealthier, to pay for a babysitter for his kids while he edits, is that being paid? And if I actually “hand him the money,” so he can pay the sitter? Etc… etc….) Editors can’t be mind readers. Best to judge each article on its merits, rather than trying to enter the very complex world of human "motivations", IMHO....
To quote, "It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. I will personally block any cases that I am shown..." - Jimmy Wales. The problem is not editing being paid, the problem is that you have a conflict of interest. Your articles have been put up for deletion because they're not notable - that is, they're sub-standard and don't stand up to our requirements. The problems with paid editing are already covered by our existing policies at WP:NPOV and WP:COI. You have a conflict of interest here and your account exists "for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization". Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, as far as I know, statements by any one individual are not equivalent to Wikipedia policy.
You claim that I have a conflict of interest. I say: Not true. My interest is quality Wikipedia articles – that is the only kind I would ever associate myself with. Which does not mean that I will not make mistakes. And when they are pointed out to me in a rational fashion, I will acknowledge them. That is a matter of personal honor. (BTW, let’s face it: We have both read many ridiculously biased Wikipedia articles -- and articles about non-notable topics -- that appear to be the product of “volunteers.”)
Further, my account certainly does not exist solely for promoting anyone or anything, paid or not. (My history of edits clearly demonstrates this).
Comment Actually, your history of edits demonstrates the opposite; yours is what we call a single purpose account. — Danieldis47 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I just sent Zachary Taylor's delinquent bill ("For Various Edits to Your Page of Wikipedia, Etc.") to collections. And the War in Afghanistan is WAY in arrears... Danieldis47 (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your last comment, you abruptly switch your argument from COI to “notability” – as if the two are somehow inexorably linked. To me, this sounds like more a matter of faith than of proven fact. If an article I edit has demonstrable notability issues, then I will gladly participate in (as I am now), and accept, the proper Wikipedia processes that ensue. I have no desire to ever be associated in any way with inferior writing, on any platform.
Thank you.Danieldis47 (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You posted off-wiki that you were paid to write this article, this clearly makes it a conflict of interest. It's very difficult to maintain a "neutral" tone if a corporation is paying you to do so. Your older edits were focused on your field of interest; that's perfectly fine, but don't use Wikipedia as a PR venue for your clients.--res Laozi speak 12:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge your concerns. But I am sure that you would not obfuscate or lie for money -- and neither would I.Danieldis47 (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one being paid to edit, not me. The neutrality problems remain, if your "interest is quality Wikipedia articles", you wouldn't have accepted payment from your client in the first place. "When someone is being compensated, the integrity of the work, including the likelihood the content remains neutral toward those who are doing the compensating, is reasonably considered to be compromise." People have done a lot worse than lying for money, after all. --res Laozi speak 15:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This point you keep making appears to be quite tautological, and thus unhelpful; that is: “You must have a COI because you cannot be neutral because you are being paid which means that you cannot be neutral and thus you must have a COI.” Leaves me scratching my head, it does… Danieldis47 (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"....if your "interest is quality Wikipedia articles," you wouldn't have accepted payment from your client in the first place." And this is another tautological statement with little logic and even less actual evidence behind it, IMHO.... Danieldis47 (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:COI? This is an established guideline, not an opinion. You may dispute it, but that doesn't change the fact that it has consensus on Wikipedia. To quote: If you "you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia... then you are very strongly encouraged to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest.". --res Laozi speak 16:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And as we can all see, the established guideline, pointedly, includes no prohibition. (Sometime, somewhere, did wise heads prevail?) But this fact seems to hold little sway in some circles.... :) Danieldis47 (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no absolutes, for all its guidelines. But "strongly discouraged", is still strongly discouraged, not commit with impunity. I understand you dispute this notion, but it does have consensus among the community, so let's leave it at that.--res Laozi speak 17:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! Danieldis47 (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"May be?" Why in the world wouldn't there be? (just curious...) Danieldis47 (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't judge generalizations. Show me the article and the sourcing, and then we'll talk. --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grazie. Danieldis47 (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd. I made the block, but don't have a clue why you were alerted. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hongkongresident supplied me with a plausible explanation. Although it confirms my suspicions, the individuals behind this stopped their recruiting, so I'm willing to let the matter drop. -- llywrch (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2010 (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.
More