Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fox Learning Systems: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Merge/Redirect |
SiobhanHansa (talk | contribs) →Fox Learning Systems: Unfortunately on closer inspection studies do not seem to support notability |
||
Line 19:
:'''Disclosure''' the above comment with the IP is mine Zdubya36, i don't want anyone to think i was trying to use multiple users to get a point across... (i logged into a different computer but forgot to log into wikipedia before i posted)
:These are much more compelling as evidence of notability. Thanks for adding them. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|SiobhanHansa]] 00:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
::I've taken a much closer look at the studies and can't find that they indicate notability. The one in a prestigious Journal ([[American Journal of Psychiatry|AJP]]) does not look at the effectiveness of FLS's product but at a quality improvement protocol of which their product happened to be a part - it may be that any training product would have been as effective - plus one of the studies author is Dr. Rosen - spouse of Debra Fox and co-founder of FLS. So not there's not even independence in it being picked to be part of the protocol. Other published studies are just well done product testing - and as yet there's no evidence in the article that the results have been particular influential. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|SiobhanHansa]] 22:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' A nonnotable provider of educational material for nursing home staff. That people associated with it produced one product about which they wrotea paper which appeared in a peer review journal is not notability. Notability would be judged for this the same as for other research groups--dozens or hundreds of references to it. It is necessary to show wide use. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 02:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' If you would read further you would see there are other studies in which they were involved... another of which is sited in their wikipedia site. Not only do they produce educational materials but also do independent studies to help the learners as well as the elder care community. This company did not produce a product based on their studies. They distributed this information to the industry. A peer review journal is notable. I once again go back to if "peer" review is not notable then anything published in JAMA is not notable. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.186.28.104|67.186.28.104]] ([[User talk:67.186.28.104|talk]]) 03:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
| |||