Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fox Learning Systems: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:28, 13 November 2008

Revision as of 20:06, 13 November 2008

Line 12:

:::'''Comment'''To my knowledge, there are 3 Papers with National Circulation. The meaning of this is that you do not need to go to a specialty newspaper store to get them. They include the USA Today, Wall Street Journal and New York Times. Please tell me if I am forgetting any. My purpose for writing this is that you cannot discount a newspaper only because it is "local". Any newspaper that has a legit circulation in a medium sized U.S. city as well as a website should not be discounted. You might also note that the Pittsburgh Post Gazette is well respected enough to syndicate op-ed articles, specifically Rob Rogers cartoons. I commend your thorough approach, SiobhanHansa, but I think your standards are through the roof. Maybe Fox Learning Systems isn't notable enough to get a front page in the Wall Street Journal, but they are notable enough to get press coverage in the Post Gazette with 400,000 readership daily plus their website. In addition to that, I and another contributer have cited numerous business journals and medical journals. Your point about Dr. Rosen being related to the owner is moot, since if you would read the studies they are NIH funded, with disclosures of their relationship, and are double blind. Some of the studies even show that FLS system did not work. See the stroke study for an example of that. Companies of all sizes and notability fund studies to test their products. If these are double blind, and published in a peer reviewed journal, they should not be discounted. This is how companies are able to innovate, find out what works and what doesn't, and plan for the future. This is exactly the type of discussion that wikipedians need to be a part of. [[User:Theovoice|Theovoice]] ([[User talk:Theovoice|talk]]) 19:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

::::As I said below it's a Pittsburgh company in a Pittsburgh paper - that's not coverage that really satisfies our standards. These aren't "my" standards they are the ones in Wikipedia's [[WP:ORG|notablity guidelines]]. If it's actually notable it should be covered by other sources that are not so local. That doesn't just mean general newspapers - other ''independent'' coverage that takes a significant look at the company could also do the trick. But local newspapers do not really show anything other than local notability. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|SiobhanHansa]] 19:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::And I agree with you on the local coverage issue. This is why I as well as another editor have included a multitude of other sources. I believe there are 21 citations now. It has been sufficently proven that this company is notable enough to have medical journals publish articles about them, newspapers run stories, Government agencies grant money to them. What more do you need? In terms of taking a sufficent look at the company, what is your definition of sufficent? No, the journals did not publish a front page article on them, but they did show multiple peer reviewed studies which use the systems provided by FLS. Again, the discussion should be morphed from "Should we delete this page?" to "How can we change it to fit wikipedias standards". I think you are being overly aggressive and negative in this pursuit of spreading knowledge. [[User:Theovoice|Theovoice]] ([[User talk:Theovoice|talk]]) 20:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business|list of Business-related deletion discussions]]. </small><small>—[[User:Eastmain|Eastmain]] ([[User talk:Eastmain|talk]]) 21:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)</small>

*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pennsylvania|list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions]]. </small><small>—[[User:Eastmain|Eastmain]] ([[User talk:Eastmain|talk]]) 21:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)</small>