Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Evaluation Association

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. Further discussion regarding the article, a possible title change and its content can continue on its talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Evaluation Association[edit]

[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 organisation with a notable product Measures of Academic Progress which doesn't (yet) have an article. Sourced only by its own website. A Google search is only returning business listings, social media, and its own website. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabayi (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Also the creator of the article did not follow the standard AfC process. Ajf773 (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm a little confused here. Cabayi, you're saying their main product, MAP, is notable - a statement I would definitely agree with. NWEA-MAP is a giant in the K-12 testing space, and plenty of writing has been done on it. It's pretty common for individual products to be merged with their companies, especially when there's not an article on the individual product. There's plenty of coverage of MAP, like this extensive Department of Education report, multiple academic publications studying the reliability and validity and effectiveness of interventions based on it ([1][2] [3] [4][5]) or news coverage of the controversy surrounding some of the tests and their implementation and the like ([6][7][8])[9][10]). I think one could argue for inclusion based on a few sources focused on NWEA in general or the non-MAP parts ([11][12]), but while I know notability is not inherited, in the absence of a MAP-specific article, I don't see the problem in keeping the parent company article. I may be misunderstanding though. MarginalCost (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a product is well-known but the company doesn't receive any attention of its own, then the company should be covered in an article on the product, not the other way around. Largoplazo (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I wouldn't oppose a move to NWEA MAP, MAP assessment, MAP (assessment) or any similar kind of title (including those with the abbreviations spelled out). I think I had more in mind when a company is indistinguishable from the signature product it produces, which admittedly may not be case here. In any event, I think deletion would be inappropriate here. MarginalCost (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What I wrote just above notwithstanding, I find a great deal of coverage via Google News attributing substantial significance to the Northwest Evaluation Association as a provider of assessments and tests. This, despite one source that says "Northwest Evaluation Association is not well-known in Portland, even though it develops and administers tests for 10 million students a year." Largoplazo (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 17:41, 3 October 2018 (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.