Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biotechnology in Maryland

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. There is clearly pretty strong consensus that the article should be deleted in its current state, and so it will be deleted. However, there is also a large minority who believe that an appropriate article on this subject could be written, and that this article currently has some good information. Therefore, I'm willing to userfy this article if anyone is interested. Please contact me on my talk page to request. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 18:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biotechnology in Maryland[edit]

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

Blatant advertising, heavy COI. Seems to wander off topic a lot, sources are questionable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - per nom, should have been speedily deleted IMHO. ukexpat (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but heavily edit I think the page warrants inclusion, there are a lot of valuable references, etc on the page. It's just a matter of converting it from a press release to a Wiki article. I don't see any reason to shoot the message just because we're upset with the messenger. (That idiom just doesn't have the same ring to it the way I just had to use it...)JoelWhy (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So are you going to do it, or are you just going to hope someone else does? And then they hope that someone else does until everyone on the whole project expects everyone else to do it, resulting in NOBODY doing it and the article still being a pile of crap 10 years from now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I volunteer to at least edit out to POV problems (and probably do more than that, as time permits.) However, I'll wait to see if we decide the keep the page or not.JoelWhy (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, why don't you start with Business in Maryland, which was created by the same author in 2009, and still reeks of peacock terms. Shadowjams (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It usually doesn't work that way Joel, it's cash up front in AFD-mart. If it got changed up enough, then people here, including the closing admin, could reconsider their !vote, but the AFD is about the article in its current state, and if the state doesn't change, neither does the discussion. AFDs are for 7 days, that should be enough time. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question do we have pages like Biotechnology in California or Biotechnology in Massachusetts or Biotechnology in New York?--New questions? 19:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the nominator's comments, biotechnology, as a field of science, has little to no relevant ties to particular states. If this article were examining a country, then perhaps its argument could be more cogent and comparative (e.g. what's truly unique or special about the way Maryland contributes to biotechnology in comparison to other states--and I don't think the article argues this point well, if at all). Though some of the information is good, it should be under many different articles about those prominent people it mentions, the technologies, or programs specific to Maryland in articles about their universities or government (and this isn't much of the article, most of it is information covered elsewhere in Wikipedia already or content mentioned by the nominator). Lord Arador (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing wrong with the topic, as shown by the referencing, but we've got quite a pile of junk content. I agree with Ukexpat that this should have been speedied. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional to the extreme, the subject of an ANI discussion, and possible COI. But aside from this particular article, the topic itself can easily be covered in the Maryland article, or Business in Maryland (which incidentally was created by the same author back in 2009), article. The explosion of "[insert industry] in [insert geographical location]" style articles is particularly prone to promotional editing. This just demonstrates that. Shadowjams (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we were going to do an industry-by-location article that would include this intersection, it would be Biotechnology in the United States (which isn't a terrible idea, frankly) rather than this by-state effort, and, more important, it wouldn't look anything like this promotional piece. There are bits and pieces here that would be salvageable for an upmerge if the parent article existed. But it doesn't. Blow it up and start over at the country level, without the salesmanship. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I opined that the article we saw initially at AFD needed to be blown up and started over, and that's pretty much what has happened to it. I'm still concerned about the lack of a parent article for Biotechnology in the United States, and would personally prefer this be merged and expanded to seed an article at that title, but that's an editorial decision, not a deletion decision, so at a minimum, I'm striking my delete !vote. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is so promotional that I was surprised that the speedy was declined. This is a collection of facts rearranged into an advertisement that seems designed to promote investment in Maryland. I really wish that the article's creator would enter into the discussion here, on their talk page, or at AN/I; they are obviously extremely familiar with wiki-markup and what it takes to get an article past new page patrol (notice the careful and thorough preparation of creating everything in a userspace sandbox and then moving the finished product into article namespace) but they seem to fundamentally misunderstand the tone expected for encyclopedia articles. Chillllls (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a possibility that the topic could be covered adequately, but would require complete rewrite from someone who didn't work at the Chamber of Commerce. Sounds like an advert. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC) see below Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib)[reply]
Delete Very, very promotional. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 08:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but edit. Apologies, everyone. I have only written a few wiki articles and this is my first time facing deletion. My first article, Business in Maryland, has been posted/maintained for three years and not received tags or controversy until now. It received a B-rating and was rated as high-importance on the WikiProject Maryland’s importance scale, so this comes as a surprise. When writing this biotech article, I consulted with subject matter experts, tried to be as neutral as possible and only used facts that could be supported by verifiable sources, listing 50+ citations (links coming today). Upon further review, I realize that there are places where it could be construed as promotional and where more third party sources are needed. Please know this was not my intention to go against community guidelines and I welcome any edits/restructuring, positive or negative. I have already made some edits to try to remove any promotional sounding language.
I think deletion sounds a little extreme with all the effort put into aggregating this data (full disclosure, I am a state of Maryland technical writer but also a journalist and lifelong Marylander). I realize now that my employee status creates a conflict of interest, but on the COI NoticeBoard it says: “Please note that the conflict of interest guideline does not absolutely prohibit subject-matter experts or other people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject.”
Also, just because there are not currently biotech wiki articles for other states doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t exist. Why shouldn't people be able to learn in-depth about a state/region's key/defining industries and the leaders and history behind those industries? Why aren’t wiki articles like California wine, Wisconsin cheese or Economy of metropolitan Detroit marked for deletion? If further revised, wouldn’t an article like this fit nicely into WikiProject Maryland, “a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia”? Finally, please know it was not my intention to try to circumvent any editing processes or new page patrol. I thought articles should be built into a user’s sandbox before making them live. Thanks for listening and for your insight. Mdbizauthor (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Mdbizauthor - I will assume you have nothing but good faith and intentions: WP:COI also says "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia. " It is easy to assume the worst when a COI exists, simply because that makes you correct most of the time. Most COI editors are problematic and care only about their own promotion, not Wikipedia. If you were to continue to add articles here (and I hope you do and learn a little more the proper way to do so) it would benefit you to declare your COI on your user page, and on the talk page of any article you create (making minor edits doesn't need that). This way you invite others to help you convert any "market-speak" into "encyclopedia-speak", and eventually you learn. Otherwise you invite other to question your motives and articles end up in AFD. It isn't personal, we just have a flood of articles with COI issues that are only spam. As I stated above, this article has potential, but would require a complete rewrite. If it is deleted, you can ask for a copy to be userfied (moved to your own user space here and not an official part of the encyclopedia) where you could rework it and perhaps submit at WP:AFC. This is done somewhat regularly. You choice of user name is also borderline in violation of username policy for being promotional in nature, which raises eyebrows when users find an article like this, that looks promotional rather than encyclopedic. Add the two together, and this is why we are here. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dennis. The information you provided is very helpful and I can see how my username is problematic. I will submit a username change request and also note my conflict of interest for others to see. With sections like history, key leaders, discoveries, etc my goal was to write an article that would be of interest to wiki readers, not attract investors to Maryland. I'm sorry if it doesn't appear that way. I am having trouble understanding why it would need a complete rewrite rather than a few tweaks here or there. For instance, the rankings I mention are made from third party independent sources like the Milken Institute and U.S. Department of Labor. I know this article is far from perfect, but there are so many articles out there that are just shells or press releases with no attempts to cite sources and yet they are not marked for deletion. I know my COI poses a red flag, but I wish everyone would take a moment to scroll down to the references section and see all the research that went into this article before dismissing it as a pure promotional piece or "pile of crap." Mdbizauthor (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once you stir up the hornet's nest, they don't settle down easily. Likely, the route I suggested is best, asking the closing admin to userfy, then clean up. Modeling it after other articles here is problematic as there are many here that are just as inappropriate. A better solution is taking that userfied version, go join Wikipedia:WikiProject Maryland which will have more experienced editors who also share your interests, and ask them to help you fix it up. Since you have a particular interest in Maryland, this would benefit both you and the project. I belong to Wikipedia:WikiProject North Carolina myself. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly promotional, not encyclopedic Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've started editing out the more clearly-promotional language. There really is some excellent content in this article, and I think it's easier to edit and fix than to recreate from scratch. It clearly needs some more work (and I will continue to work on it.) The article is still clearly pro-Maryland -- I am starting to look for articles that may discuss some of the flaws in the industry, etc to provide some balance. But, the state's known for it's prominence in this industry, so it ultimately will pain MD in a positive light (and I don't plan on adding negative info just for the sake of it to create a false balance.) In any case, I hope that the other editors will review some of the changes and reevaluate their stances. (Please keep in mind that I am the editor who tagged this as POV, and I reported the editor for COI. I did recently move to Maryland, but I honestly have no bias one way or the other about the state or the biotech industry (which is fairly removed from my profession.) I just think the article has some merit.JoelWhy (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joel for taking a step back from the crowd to see that there is some merit to this article and that it's worth salvaging. The criticism has been a little hard to take and quite humbling, but I have learned much through this experience and know I will become a better wikipedian because of it. I appreciate the time you (and everyone) are taking to make this article stronger and look forward to seeing your changes. Mdbizauthor (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a few days in the AFD, ping me and I will look at it again before it closes. Others will if you ask them as well. We aren't here to try to delete everything, it is just that so many new articles are created that are spam and we have to deal with them. Once you have been here a while, you will see what we are talking about. You are communicating in a positive and helpful way, which honestly, makes it very easy to reconsider once the new version of the article is created. A good attitude and non-defensive nature goes a long way here. I still suggest you join the Maryland project, it would be a win/win for you and the project. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very impressed by Mdbizauthor's willingness to come here and engage. I have concerns that we don't have a Biotechnology in the United States article before we start having state specific ones. Certainly the author should be given a chance to userfy the page and work on it. I think the best approach would be to integrate this material into Business in Maryland, while working to clean up some of the promotional tone in that article. Or, alternatively, create a Biotechnology in North America/United States (one of those). Shadowjams (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dennis and Shadowjams. Dennis, I see your point - I'm sure fighting the spam battle must get old. I will ping you before it closes and truly appreciate you offering to take another look. I have joined the wikiMaryland project, changed my username and declared my COI - thanks for the suggestions. Shadowjams, I also see your point but honestly, the thought of userfying and tearing it down, rebuilding and possibly going through this whole process again makes me weary of even trying. With JoelWhy working on it, I hope we can get a definitive yes or no. As for incorporating it into Business in Maryland, I think we would need to omit sections like history, and possibly discoveries and key leaders, which I think are some of the stronger parts of the piece. I understand your reluctance with this being the first biotechnology piece for a state, but it doesn't mean other states can't follow suit. Would love to learn more about California's or Massachusetts' biotech industry. Biotechnology in the US seems like it would be a massive undertaking. Ferddog (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One last suggestion, in any discussion where you have both names showing, like here, you might want to add (I was Mdbizauthor, name change) or something less verbose, just to prevent confusion. After you sig is a good place, not too distracting. Only in discussions where you have already posted in. And no prob on looking again, that is why we all are here, to build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and deal with spam the way it should be done, by carefully policing the article. Kt's rather easy, actually, to do this with articles where it might be attracted than when people add mention of their unimprtant company in unexpected places. It is a major part of the economy there; there are reasons; it is a notable center for the business. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC) .[reply]

Good point, DGG. Biotechnology is big in Maryland due to proximity to NIH and Hopkins, etc. But that shouldn't preclude an article being written about it.

Comment - Thanks to JoelWhy for editing to remove promo sound and making cleaner and tighter. I also made some edits to remove promotional language. New version sounds much better. Those who voted against, please consider re-reading new version and weighing in before tomorrow's close date. Thanks. Ferddog (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC) (I was Mdbizauthor, name change)[reply]
Keep The concerns I had above have been dealt with, with a fundamental rewrite. The article could still use fine tuning, but is overall a good article that covers the topic in a significantly more neutral manner. I would ask the closing admin to consider the changes in the article from the start to now when closing. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 23:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I consider the topic to be not suitable for Wikipedia. The fact that the content has been improved does not alter that fact. To justify existence they would have to establish that Biotechnology in that state is notable (more notable then in most other states / countries) 139.149.1.230 (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's because biotech is more notable in Maryland than it is in most states. I believe it's ranked #3 in the nation.JoelWhy (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2012 (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.