Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fox Learning Systems: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
SiobhanHansa (talk | contribs) Comment (& spa template) |
|||
Line 13:
::::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)
::::::I'm sorry you see it as aggressive but when my posts to the article and talk page were reverted or ignored without significant improvement - and I could not find references I considered appropriate - I had few other avenues than to nominate for deletion. I would be happy to continue the discussion I started there before nominating [[Talk:Fox_Learning_Systems]]. This debate however normally last for five days and doesn't change focus. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|SiobhanHansa]] 20:34, 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>
Line 33 ⟶ 34:
:::'''Comment''' Voice, [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] is never a valid argument for inclusion. --[[User:CliffC|CliffC]] ([[User talk:CliffC|talk]]) 15:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
:::'''Comment''' Point taken. I have added two more LTC industry sources that cite grants being funded to FLS. If government agencies like the NIH and NIMH (National Institute of Mental Health) find Fox Learning Systems notable enough to give large amounts of grant money, then so should wikipedia. When can we finally put this discussion to rest? [[User:Theovoice|Theovoice]] ([[User talk:Theovoice|talk]]) 15:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
'''Keep'''This is a legit and notable company. I have heard about Fox Learning Systems in many states across the nation and I've seen their videos throughout the medical community.[[User:BAT77|BAT77]] ([[User talk:BAT77|talk]]) 20:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)<small>— [[User:BAT77|BAT77]] ([[User talk:BAT77|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BAT77|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}</small>
| |||