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 no consensus. NPASR. —Darkwind (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Novim[edit]

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

Really a G11, but since it was accepted at AfC I bring it here. A purely promotional article, claiming credit for everything done by anyone working on any of their projects. DGG ( talk ) 10:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional. Sources to establish WP:NONPROFIT not found. -- 101.119.14.134 (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where I wrote anything that the organization was "claiming credit for everything done by anyone working on any of their projects". Can someone suggest edits on that? The article discusses projects done by the organization, the people involved in those projects and the people involved in the organization. The projects were significant, the BEST study was discussed in national venues. This was my first WP article so if this is somehow promotional I would like to know how I can edit it to conform to WP standards.--Keithacarlson (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Daniel (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that there's some editing here that needs to be done - but this clearly looks like a notable organization, from the number of times it's referenced by other sources. And, it appears that the article was well-written and sourced - but there are parts that need a more objective, less dramatic tone. There are some things readily apparent that I'll try.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I made edits to the article and it still needs more work to show how their work is used for public policy and change (i.e., to Daniel's point a study is interesting but that in itself does not make it notable)... specifically by showing how governmental and non-governmental organizations have used the information. I am happy to do that if the article is kept.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of the issues here is the notability of Novim's projects vs Novim itself. The first two projects have gained notability through coverage in independent sources. But I've found very little in independent RS about the organization itself. According to WP:NOTINHERITED, notability of the projects doesn't confer notability upon the sponsoring institution. The other issue is conflict of interest. There is a Keith Carlson who is Technical Director of Novim who is likely the author of the article. Creating an article about an organization in which one has a financial stake is a conflict of interest, per WP:COI. The apparent non-notability of Novim itself, the promotional nature of the article and the conflict of interest lead me to suggest deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mark viking: I'm a bit confused, which could be because I just need to understand the related guidelines better:
  - If the article has been edited to remove promotional content and is properly cited, why does it matter if Mr. Carlson first brought it to Wikipedia? (This would help me, because I review a lot of new articles, should I nominate articles for deletion, rather than try to copyedit them, if it clearly appears to be a WP:COI issue?)
    - In some cases, a COI does play a role in deletion. For instance, in speedy deletion via WP:G11, COI could help make the case that the article was unambiguously promotional. For AfD, you're correct that COI by itself is not a reason for deletion. But COI's effects--a non-neutral POV and promotional prose--do play a role in deletion. Non-notability of Novim is the reason I suggested deletion. I noted the inadvertent/undisclosed COI as a warning to other editors that this article bears close scrutiny; it has framed my perception of the article. Promotional articles with COI origins can be rescued, but notability would need to be established first. --Mark viking (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good points. I'm not sure how many new users are aware that COI is an issue (unless the article is tagged, etc.) and that it's incumbent upon them to declare it, but I see your points.
  - I'm trying to extrapolate the points about the studies being notable - but not the organization. Would that mean that instead of having one Novim article, it could be better to have 2 articles about the first 2 studies?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's right--if a project has had enough impact that multiple independent reliable sources have discussed the project in depth, one could in principle write an article that would withstand an AfD test. This is no different than the relation between notable work being done by a professor and the department where they work. The Nobel prize winning work in physics done by David Gross is notable, but this confers no notability upon either the Kavli institute or Novim. --Mark viking (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - In this case, since purpose of the organization was to create the studies and then communicate study findings, I guess I'm not quite computing this part, but that's ok. It's a consensus driven process, so I'll be interested to see the final voting and decision. Thanks for addressing both points thoroughly!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2014 (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.