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. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Invented Here (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is an original research. Most of the facts that cited as an examples of NIH term (NIH is a term used to describe) have way more complex roots, like program cost overruns(Harrier), unfree licenses(KDE), poor economic performance(China was not developing it own weapons -that was 30 years ago). Whole military section I believe ridiculous. TestPilot 03:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, topic is notable, article is a complete mess. Not Invented Here is a recognized "problem" in many contexts -- especially engineering, most often software engineering -- and it should be possible to source those. The article should probably be less about mostly-apocryphal or anecdotal instances and more about how NIH is seen as a problem and methods to counteract it. It's definitely had full treatments and not just passing mentions or references. (Google News Archive results with potential reliable sources.) --Dhartung | Talk 04:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with topic itself - I'm taking about an article, it is awful and most likely, qualify as original research. TestPilot 07:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, remove everything in the article you think is awful. This should leave something (the first paragraph at least seems ok). We really should have at least a stub on this subject. Tizio 11:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The topic is important, but the article is largely unreferenced. I have read over the years various accounts of inventors bringing devices to large corporations who shun a clear improvement to their product because it did not come from their own R & D program. An example is ""When you have a new idea, it's hard to get them (big car companies) to believe that an attorney in Indianapolis came up with a better idea than their team of engineers did. It's the 'not- invented-here' syndrome," said Troy J. Cole, Griffiths' patent attorney at Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry of Indianapolis. "The outside guy always has to swim against the current."" from "Little engine patent that could," Tom Spalding. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Washington: May 8, 2007. pg. 1. Proquest shows numerous articles about the NIH syndrome every year. The article just needs editing, not deletion. Edison 13:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unmitigated OR. If it talked about the history of the phrase, it might be worthwhile, but instead it is an examination of various projects and whether they might have been affected by the phenomenon. Mangoe 17:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article can be reduced to a stub, if needed. I believe that at least the first few paragraphs are of reasonable quality. Tizio 17:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rambling and invented definition with a pseudo-sociological explanation of a simple vernacular term. NIH = closed mind (like mine). That's all. andy 17:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article on notable topic; remove OR content (even if that means moving everything except the first few sentences to talk page to be sorted through). A search should find large numbers of mentions in reliable sources beyond the two books in the "further reading" section. Almost all of the existing content is unsourced, and a lot of it reeks of unsourceabilty, but this is a matter for heavy cleanup, not for AfD. Barno 19:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between deleting all the content and an AfD? :) andy 21:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not saying "delete all content", we are saying "reduce article to a stub". A stub can be then expanded using only sourced material. Otherwise, we could just program a bot to delete all articles in Special:Shortpages. Expansion is clearly possible given that this concept is referenced in a number of books and articles [1][2]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tizio (talk • contribs) 11:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• The subject is notable, and deserves a good article. Keep, even if that means reducing it to a stub, and expand from cited sources if possible. -- The Anome 22:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is unambiguously notable, and there are two clear references to explanations, Hundreds thousands of examples can of course be cited where the term has been used. The present main content of this article, the detailed description of what the author thinks notable about various militaries and NIH belong in separated cited articles.DGG 05:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki. Assuming that that Tizio is correct, and the the article is reduced back to its first few paragraphs, I think that would amount to a dicdef and should be transwikied to Wiktionary as slang. The question to me isn't about deletion; to me, it's whether it is a subject unto itself, or if much can be said past defining it. YMMV, but I doubt it's much more than a heading entry in one or more of the Management category articles. (If AfD is denied, then it should be in Management category, even though I don't personally buy into the notion it should be kept.) 74.134.59.45 04:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but de-OR-ify. "NIH syndrome" appears to be a fairly notable term. - Sikon 12:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as a concept the NIH syndrome is significant, and worthy of a good article and analysis. The article may benefit strongly by moving the military examples to it's own page, perhaps with a title less strongly affiliated with "NIH syndrome". This is so, because it does not strike me that the real NIH syndrome influences military technology any more than any other technology. Further more the NIH syndrome is not even limited to technological inventions, but the "invention" can be anything that the human mind is capable of. Mahjongg 01:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I found this entry after seeing it in print being used to describe the New York Times attitude toward the Walter Reed scandal. I wasn't sure what "not Invented Here" meant until I found it on Wikipedia. I think it's an important entry, is notable, but requires serious cleanup.

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.