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 no consensus to delete. The article is well-referenced and not an immediate spam/coi concern. The lack of outstanding delete preferences make this a simple close. Potential merges/redirects ought to be discussed on the article talk page. Non-admin closure by the skomorokh 20:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Learning Systems[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
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)[reply]
CommentTo 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. Theovoice (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. -- SiobhanHansa 19:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. Theovoice (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- SiobhanHansa 20:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. -- SiobhanHansa 00:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a much closer look at the studies and can't find that they indicate notability. The one in a prestigious Journal (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. -- SiobhanHansa 22:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your thorough assesment and help forming the page. I do still disagree with you in the merit of nobility but i believe you have put a fair effort into looking into the site as i feel you did not do before marking it for deletion. there will be many more things added to this site including people that have used the studies in their studies. another study about strokes that they have performed and some other information. About the studies... Fox Learning Systems headed all of these studies and hired all of those doctors for their research... which is why dr. rosen would be the author. I know this company is notable and as it stands i am more than willing to have someone judge it for deletion because it is a lot stronger than some of the content that currently lives on wikipedia and was unfairly marked for deletion. At this point i have provided more than enough evidence to its nobility and i am not trying to change your opinion at this point because i feel nothing would. but again thank you for helping form the site to wikipedias standards... please check back in and review the changes i will make in the next couple days... maybe i can change your mind[[Zdubya36 (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.28.104 (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company is notable in the elder-care industry. Not every business on wikipedia has worldwide exposure. The question should be "is the business notable in a certain industry?" The answer for Fox Learning Systems is YES! If you were familiar with the LTC industry, there would be no question as to the notability of this company. Moreover, the Post Gazette is a legitimate enough source to justify wikipedia's legitimacy requirments. The notion that it needs to be in a "national paper", of which there are only about 5, is completely ridiculous. I know there are not any requirements set in stone for what a reliable source is, but lets use common sense. The Post Gazette is the main newspaper for the Pittsburgh region, with over 400,000 readers on weekdays and over 600,000 on Sundays. Plus their website gets a significant number of hits. Theovoice (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)— Theovoice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The issue I have with the post-gazette isn't about whether it's a reliable source but about whether it helps meet our notability guidelines which says coverage should not simply be local. A Pittsburgh company whose newspaper coverage is only in Pittsburgh newspapers - that's looks like local coverage to me. The rest of what you say about the company may well be true - sources that verify it would be great. So far though we have local newspapers and studies by people connected with the company, press releases and a puff piece. -- SiobhanHansa 00:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will put up some industry sources soon to put the issue of notability to rest. Please take a look at the following wiki and tell me how it meets notability if FLS doesn't. My opinion is both of these pages should be kept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viv%C3%ADsimo Both of these companies are notable in a certain industry. I know nothing about Search Enterprise software field, but I can see from their sources, which are some press releases and other technological journals, that they are notable. Theovoice (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Voice, WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a valid argument for inclusion. --CliffC (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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? Theovoice (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis 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.BAT77 (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)— BAT77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This is Jules Rosen M.D. jumping into this interesting conversation. As I do with any grant submission, publication, and presentation, I acknowledge my financial and personal interest in this company. As a absolute condition set by the University of Pittsburgh, I have NO access to raw data and do NOT participate in any data analysis in work that involves FLS. That said, I wish to point out that the unique presentation of FLS' educational material has impressed mental health educators nationally and continues to grow. Specifically, in an age when slide presentations (such as PowerPoint) are the standard bearer of education, FLS uses the technique of interactive documentary, similar to watching "60 Minutes", but learners engage with on-line questions and tests. An emotional connection with real-life patients, families, and clinicians knowledge and is consistent with the standard theories of adult learning. In terms of the national impact of FLS, the following faculty members of universities other than Pittsburgh have actively participated in the conduction of research or data analysis and are co-authors of peer-reviewed medical journals: Vikas Mittal PhD, Professor of Business and Marketing, Rice University; Benoit H. Mulsant MD, Professor of Psychiatry and Chief of Staff, CAMH, Toronto Canada; Martha L. Bruce PhD, Professor of Psychiatry, Weill Medical College of Cornell University; Robert C. Young, Professor of Psychiatry, Weill Mecical College, Cornell University. The Stroke Education project, recently funded by National Institute of Neurologic Diseases and Stroke, involves Eric Lenze, MD, Professor of Psychiatry, Washington University, St. Louis; Michael Munin MD, Professor of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of PIttsburgh; and Lawrence Wechsler MD, Professor and Acting Chair of Neurology and Director of the STroke Institute, University of Pittsburgh. I (Dr. Rosen) have no involvement in this study. We have corrected the initial posting that incorrectly cited a negative study on stroke education of FLS. That published negative study was actually the reason Drs. Lenze and Munin approached FLS. Using traditional classroom and video education in rehab, 1/3 of the stroke survivors had no idea what their risks factors were or what they could do to prevent a stroke. Finally, the National Institute of Mental Health approached FLS recently to develop a curriculum of late-life mental health education to attract physician, nurses, social workers, and psychologists to geriatric practices or research. The team of experts from around the country confirms the position FLS has on the national agenda of late-life mental health education. The key consultants working with FLS include: 1) Dilip V. Jeste, M.D. Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry and Neurosciences, Director, Sam and Rose Stein Institute for Research on Aging and Chief, Geriatric Psychiatry Division at UCSD/VA SD Healthcare System; 2) Patricia A. Arean Ph.D., associate professor in the Department of Psychiatry, UCSF; 3)Charles F. Reynolds III, M.D. Professor of Geriatric Psychiatry; and professor of neurology and neuroscience; Senior Associate Dean University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine; 4) Cornelia Beck, PhD, RN, FAAN, Professor, Department of Geriatrics, and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, and Professor, College of Nursing, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas 5)Richard Schulz, Ph.D., Professor of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Director of Gerontology, University of Pittsburgh and Director, Geriatric Education Center of Pennsylvania. Finally, the producer of the Late-life Education curriculum is Gregg Ramshaw, formerly the executive producer of the News Hour with Jim Lehrer (PBS) for 28 years and the winner of a prestigious Peabody Award for television journalism. The unique blending of network television journalists and the national leaders in late-life mental health research and education positions FLS in a position of notable prominence. I apologize for the long-winded response, and look forward to further discussions. Jules Rosen MD 


—Preceding unsigned comment added by Banjo1127 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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.
More