Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fox Learning Systems

Fox Learning Systems

Fox Learning Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Does not appear to be notable. Sources are local or press release/puff piece types. Biggest claim to fame appears to be that it was founded by a former local news reporter. Recommend deletion. SiobhanHansa 20:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect – Fits more into Ms. Fox’s article than a stand alone piece at this time. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The article's references displayed as raw URLs, so it wasn't clear which were notable. I formatted the references to include the news outlet name, the article name and the date of publication. A few are press releases, but I think http://www.post-gazette.com/businessnews/20001110fox2.asp and http://e-magnify.com/entrepreneurs_view.asp?ID=12 represents substantial coverage. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment Isn't the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette a local paper? And the e-magnify piece seemed like a fairly straight forward puff piece intended to highlight an entrepreneur rather than take a critical look at the business. For the sake of completeness I would mention that as well as press releases there is another newspaper reference to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review but again that seems like a local paper to me. -- SiobhanHansa 22:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Comment Your above logic could be applied to anybody that sites the New York Times or LA Times. Are they not local papers as well. They didn't site the Erie County Nifty Nickel. These are 3 articles that are as legitimate as any on wikipedia, Supported by Press Releases... Debate the information pertaining to the press releases if that is your issue, the whole article should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.28.104 (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times and to a lesser extent the LA Times are sold all over the world. It wasn't my impression that this was generally the case for either of the two Pittsburgh papers - though maybe I'm wrong. -- SiobhanHansa 00:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see Zdubya36 comments in the discussion portion... i have never had to debate a deletion before —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdubya36 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ammendment: I have added a new section to the Fox Learning Systems page about a medical study they conducted that was published in a the American Journal of Psychiatry this should please SiobhanHansa as it is not local nor a puff piece and published in a major medical journal. Included in the sitations are an article about the study and the study itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.28.104 (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

These are much more compelling as evidence of notability. Thanks for adding them. -- SiobhanHansa 00:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)