Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonproliferation Policy Education Center

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 merge to Henry D. Sokolski. There is consensus that a notable subject exists here, and there is marginally more agreement that it is the person, rather than the organization. That Sokolski's article is/was in bad shape is only a reason to expedite the merger. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC) Clarifying after discussion on my talk page that consensus here is for a single article, but this discussion does not preclude future consensus that this single article should exist at the present title, rather than at Sokolski's article. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonproliferation Policy Education Center

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

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

Non-notable with no third-party coverage. Article is unsourced and little more than an advertisement. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think this page should be deleted. NPEC is a well known think tank among U.S. policymakers and Congress and it influences U.S. foreign policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commonsensefp (talk • contribs) 12:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. True that it included no third-party coverage as of nomination and was essentially unsourced. Not sure about the "advertisement" part as it seemed pretty dry and factual; it read more like a directory listing. Anyway not sure yet, but it's quite possible this article could be saved. The challenge with think tanks, especially those that are media savvy, is that they generate so much coverage that it will take quite a long time to go through all of it to try to identify any pieces that cover the organization in any depth. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added a few sources as a start. Will plan to revisit over the coming days but this article is important and can be easily fixed with additional secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG (as technically it's a nonprofit). Cielquiparle (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good start. But NPEC is no longer associated with ISS. Hasn’t been for more than a decade. So, you might drop that reference. Also useful an article that describes NPEC’s nuclear instruction on the Hill by Rachel Oswald, “A Teach of How to Avoid Annihilation,” Congressional Quarterly, Feb. 5, 2018. Finally, NPEC was quite critical of Bush II’s second term. See “Nonproliferation By the Numbers” that takes Bush to task on a number of nonproliferation fronts. See https://ciaotest.cc.Columbia.edu/olj/jisa_2007_spring/jisa_2007_spring_g.pdf 2604:2D80:919C:8700:2585:35CF:D475:57AD (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this, this is perfect. Thank you! Cielquiparle (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This page should definitely not be deleted. It is a well-known organization located in Washington DC and known around the world that releases many publications and hosts space and nuclear fellowships for policymakers. It has been influential for years. 216.164.51.219 (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting this page would be a mistake. Whoever revised the page simply didn't know Wikipedia rules. That said, there is nothing in the revision that is particularly self-serving. They just needed to have citations rather than hyperlinks to the organization's website. This looks like an honest mistake that should be easy to correct. 2606:9400:8FA0:278:B1FC:4BE6:831F:5A22 (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)— 2606:9400:8FA0:278:B1FC:4BE6:831F:5A22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I fixed all this prior to this comment, every single statement in the article is now cited to secondary sources. If you have a conflict of interest and would like to discuss/request further modifications, please take it to the article Talk page, and I'm happy to continue editing. Thanks. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would like to turn our attention that many of the sources are opinion pieces, most of those by the executive director himself, not factual reporting about the organization. I do not have the time to vet every source, but a quick review does not show any independent coverage about the organization in reliable secondary sources. I think the nom does know the rules, but I do not have time right now to review every one of them. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll list the secondary sources out shortly. I would just ask that all the anonymous users who are clearly very concerned about this article please chill out. Unless you have more secondary sources to suggest, it's confused things that we've had so many people pile on without knowing the rules. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To establish notability from a Wikipedia point of view, we need to demonstrate significant coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG (allowed per WP:NONPROFIT). By definition, think tanks struggle with this requirement because so much of the coverage generated comes from the organization itself (and thus is not independent). Coverage which draws too heavily on interviews with the subject often doesn't count, either.

Regarding the secondary sources that we have added to the article so far (*since* it was first nominated for deletion), which IMO are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG, also in view of the fact that the activities of the organization are national (and international) in scope:

Sangillo, Greg and Kukis, Mark (2004). Nuclear, and Other, Worries in National Journal. NPEC executive director is one of 11 nonproliferation experts profiled in this article. Four in-depth paragraphs, explaining Sokolski/NPEC's stance on key issues, exactly what we want to see in secondary coverage about a think tank (even if subject and colleague were briefly quoted).
Margulies, Philip (2008). Nuclear Nonproliferation. Book published by Gale Research. Includes some independent analysis of the quality of research, the calibre of staff, and political leanings of NPEC (hence the Bush administration discussion above), compared and contrasted with other think tanks, over a few pages within the book. It's not the Platonic ideal of SIGCOV, but of all the sources, this was one of the most helpful not only in validating the significance of NPEC, but also in clarifying its positioning vis-à-vis other organizations within the field, from several angles.
Webb, Gregory (2003). National Journal article on top web sites across 50 issue areas. The NPEC web site is featured in the category "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Yes, it's one paragraph, but it's one paragraph in an independent, reliable source also validating the authority and expertise of the organization within this subject area.
Oswald, Rachel (2018). Congressional Quarterly magazine feature article on the NPEC public policy fellowship. This is the most in-depth, focused article on NPEC. Four out of 14 paragraphs include direct quotes from Sokolski, and while much of the article refers indirectly to information he has shared with Oswald, it also includes quotes from a California Republican and a Massachusetts Democrat regarding their views on NPEC, facts about the public policy fellowship, and information about the reach and potential impact of the NPEC program reported by Oswald which was reviewed and approved by editors of Congressional Quarterly.
Arms Control Today (January/February 2015), book review of Moving Beyond Pretense: Nuclear Power and Nonproliferation edited by Sokolski of NPEC.

Finally, to give an idea of how extensively NPEC is cited in the mainstream media by secondary sources, please see the Citations page on their web site. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Henry D. Sokolski As far as I can see (paywalls permitting), pretty much all of the substantive RS coverage is of Sokolski speaking, not about the activities of the NPEC independent of him. (Have I missed something?) OsFish (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The merge seems to be the best option. Oaktree b (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to #TeamNPEC: This is why it was a bad idea to add more Sokolski-centric content to the NPEC page. I will add back more information, cited, about the think tank's programs and activities, which will help to make a better case for why there should be standalone page for the think tank. (This is a common problem with businesses and other organizations where the founder/entrepreneur has a big footprint on the organization, and isn't insurmountable.) Cielquiparle (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of the AfD, could you provide some accessible links here to a reasonable number of RS that give substantive coverage to NPEC independently of Sokolski's activities (ie more than a reference to Sokolski's position in NPEC when he is quoted?)? I'm aware my !vote is based on an absence of evidence rather than evidence of absence (such as exhaustive google searches turning up nothing and so would be happy to reverse if multiple such RS exist.OsFish (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you log in to Wikipedia Library and click on the links, they should work. (If you don't have access to it yet, you may be able to get an account by asking and explaining why you need it.) You can check out the Nuclear Nonproliferation book from the Internet Archive (which is free). The CQ Magazine article is now locked down again (it was open for a while), but you can read excerpts of it at the bottom of this page. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem for me is that I just don't see significant coverage of the NPEC distinct from Sokolski's personal activities in these sources as required per WP:GNG. I would need more information to locate the wayback machine's copy of the Nuclear Nonproliferation book, but going by the preview on Google Books, it makes only passing mention to the NPEC - an address listing and brief description, and in mentions of Sokolski. That isn't significant coverage to my mind. The link you gave to CQ quotes contains cited praise for Sokolski more than the NPEC. I looked at the first couple of pages of results in the Wikipedia Library, and I didn't see any secondary sources that cover the activities of the NPEC as opposed to the activities specifically of Sokolski. Could you cite specific articles? I'm not a deletionist by nature; it's just that I genuinely haven't see much evidence yet that this is, going by Wikipedia policies, a separate topic to Henry Sokolski.OsFish (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've reformatted the article to more closely follow the think tank template used elsewhere, so please be sure to read the latest version of Nonproliferation Policy Education Center as well, which now makes it clearer that it's an organization with participation from many other people. If I had to choose between the two, I would keep NPEC and merge Sokolski's bio into NPEC. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been any significant changes to the sourcing since my initial !vote that would show NPEC a topic independent of Sokolski. Establishing that an entity exists isn't sufficient for it to be notable. Sokolski's own page shows that he has done far more than just the NPEC. To merge his page to here would be to lose a lot of RS-backed material. OsFish (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. The Sokolski page had zero sources. I just recently moved some of the sentences and citations from this page to the Sokolski page so it wouldn't look so bare, and those are mostly commentary by him in larger articles, not about him. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing I added was 1) information about the NPEC Public Policy Fellowship as a standalone program, and its impact on the Hill; 2) funding information from MacArthur and Carnegie Foundations; 3) calling out NPEC publications including edited volumes with contributions from other non-NPEC experts, and demonstrating their wider impact including citations in other publications. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a conflation going on with the independence of NPEC from Sokolski in the real world, and the independence of the NPEC's notability sans Sokolski. So much of what is said substantively about the NPEC not as a creature of Sokolski is from the NPEC itself. That's not secondary. The sourcing for Sokolski's page isn't great, but that's fixable because all the details all can be confirmed in published reliable sources. I just added a couple of sources myself. Anyway, I think I've made my own position as clear as I can, so I won't waste your time stating it over again after this.OsFish (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can agree to disagree, but I did want to point out, I was quite careful to cite sources that were independent of NPEC for NPEC, whereas the information from his bio understandably suffers from the problem that most government career bios face (boilerplate bios that get republished everywhere and facts that can be difficult to cross-reference externally). Regardless, I value your thoughts on this because I am wondering whether I should propose a subject notability guideline specifically for think tanks, similar to WP:NACADEMIC. And thanks for adding to Sokolski's bio, I do think the more we expand and add citations to that one, the clearer the difference will be! Cielquiparle (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While Cielquiparle has made huge improvements to the article, I still believe NPEC is borderline. It is also pretty much (AFAICS) a vehicle for Henry D. Sokolski - and I note the Merge suggestion above, but the Henry D. Sokolski page has no citations whatsoever and is appallingly sourced - there could be an argument for merging THAT article with this one. I doubt both deserve to continue existing. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to @Alexandermcnabb:: I agree that only one page should exist. My own preference is for the person rather than the organisation because the RS thus far provided across the two articles seem to be about Sokolski primarily, establishing his, not NPEC's notability. WP:INHERITORG states "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it...The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable." So I think it would make sense for the good work done on improving the article here be used for Sokolski's page rather than go to waste. OsFish (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge either into or of Henry D. Sokolski, based on whichever topic has the strongest sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:19, 18 November 2022 (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.