Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phytobiome


 * 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn by. (non-admin closure) –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Phytobiome

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

In my discussions that I have had with the other editor of this article I became convinced that this article has been created in good faith. The other major editor may have a conflict of interest regarding the maintenance of this page. The title is a neologism and is not widely used except in the self-generated materials and conference agendas. The editor that communicated to me that the term 'Phytobiome' is 'coined' and is a created word WP:NEO. The editor has added a template to their talk page indicating they have a conflict of interest but they don't describe it. The editor has only edited the phytobiome article and placed a link in the microbiota and the holobiont articles. It appears that the only independent source that uses the term phytobiome appears in the well-respected journal 'Naure'. I actually hate nominating articles for deletion and suggest that this article be moved to the user's draft space until the word becomes more widely used by independent sources. I also propose that the other editor has a major conflict of and be counselled on how to edit accordingly. This editor should state their affiliation with the organizations mentioned in the article. If the editor is willing, I will be happy to guide them through this process of AfD discussion and move the article to their draft space. I will provide a link to their draft space to them and explain the process of editing without a conflict of interest and how to better reveal their conflict of interest. Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  10:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  19:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  19:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Provisional keep. I'm having trouble getting my head around this nomination. At least in its current form, the article doesn't appear to be about an organisation, it's about a scientific concept. We don't usually consider scientists writing about their field of study a conflict of interest. If the concept is a neologism, it seems notable enough to me: there's a journal called Phyobiome published by the (apparently well-respected?) American Phytopathological Society; papers with "phytobiome" in the title in Cell, Current Opinion in Plant Biology and Plant Gene; and dozens of mentions in text of other papers. However this isn't my area so I'm not sure. can you clarify what conflict of interest you think there is here, and what you mean by not independent/"self-generated" sources in this context? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that User:Isac16 has declared a COI in relation to the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes but I wonder if they mean that they're involved with one of the organisations research phytobiomes mentioned in the article. We wouldn't usually consider that a COI with regard to the whole topic. (Being a member of the Prehistoric Society doesn't stop me writing about prehistory!) In any case COI isn't a reason to delete an article. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a slight but adequately sourced article about a term with sufficient usage in its field that it can be considered notable; which is demonstrated by the provided sources (those naked URLs need a bit of clothing - will do). As noted by Joe above, scientists generally don't get hardlined about "COI" regarding their field, as this is is our primary source of expert editorship on many specialist topics. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * tidied refs up a bit, some concatenation -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: I've notified, the main contributor to this article after the creator, about this discussion. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - the editor works for a consulting firm according to some personal correspondence I was sent and is not the scientist who has done the research on this topic. The editor is involved in all the organizations that form the basis for all the references except the one Penn State reference. I have found some academic sources via a Pitt library search and will improve the article to include these reliable sources. The reason why these academic sources weren't probably used is that the editor is very new and probably has some difficulty in using academic searches and the WP system of notification and communication. I would like to 'de-nominate' this article for deletion. I am glad that this article can remain! I believe in building an encyclopedia, not tearing it down. My apologies to the author/editor. I will contact them via email since that is their preferred mode of communication.
 * Best Regards,
 * Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  09:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see, in that case I agree it would definitely be a good idea to inform them about our COI policy as well as WP:PAID. However since you've withdrawn your nomination and we all agree the topic is notable I'll go ahead and close this AfD. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.