Sleep to Live Institute – Decision endorsed. The decision was within administrator discretion and a second relist is highly discouraged. The page creator is encouraged to continue to work on the article in userspace and obtain views from experienced editors on what constitute reliable sources in this case. – Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sleep to Live Institute (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Undeletion request per the recommendation of Xymmax, the administrator that deleted the page originally, as the process has been met with little consensus or discussion fleshing out the issues fully. For ease of reference, I'll provide a synopsis of the process to date: Created the article with a basic intro, company information and history pertinent to a Bedding & Sleep Research Facility. RT noted it was well written but had the air of advertising. Per RT's suggestions I removed trademarks (that I included previously expecting they were more appropriate for documentation). JohnnyB256 raised issue of non-notability. I requested specifics and quoted some notability requirements I felt were presented and did not receive any rebuttal. Still, I opted to add some innovations important to the industry along with articles supporting awards given those innovations and doubled secondary sources to alleviate notability concerns. Additionally, I added multiple international interviews on both radio and television that featured the head of the Sleep to Live Institute to further establish the notability of the Institute given international media presence. Due to lack of consensus the article was relisted. UltraMagnus mentioned that only 1 of the news articles was, in their opinion, reliable. I offered some explanation to why the sources were indeed reliable, many of them specific to the relevant industry and again received no further discussion. Xymmax deleted the article (and will be commenting on rationale so I'll not speak for them). At my request, Xymmax Userfied the article and suggested I present a few of the sources for review with the reliable sources editors, with the indication that if they found the industry publications and international media reliable, the article could be undeleted. I intentionally focused on the international media with a couple industry publications listed (as Xymmax suggested only listing a few); however, there were numerous industry publications with some discussion about the Sleep to Live Institute (the full reference list is on the article). Simonm223 found that the sources were reliable in establishing notability of the company but suggested changes to the article itself to improve the neutral point of view. DGG didn't feel the information industry publications had adequate focus to be significant; but, did not have input on the international media adding to that. When prompted to get an opinion on how the international media added to the notability, they also failed to enter any further discussion. At this point, there has still been minimal consensus reached and I have added one additional reference found in another industry publication. I approached Xymmax again and they have suggested this post here to get a "binding opinion". Please excuse any errors in my posting :) and thank you for your time. Cronides2 (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Link fixed, userfied version at User:Cronides2/sandbox/Sleep to Live Institute. Tim Song (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] It's not a crime to be more familiar with promotional writing than with writing for an encyclopaedia, but I'm afraid I don't see that material as ready for the mainspace quite yet. The draft emphasizes the project's aspirations rather than its achievements. If I were you, I'd cut every single mention of what Kingsdown, Inc., hope to do in favour of a more detailed listing of the things they have actually accomplished. Each item listed should be accompanied by discussion of the achievement's impact and significance, supported by a reference to a reliable source. This piece mentions the company's CEO by name and describes his vision for the future. That's one of the red flags for an article sourced to corporate press releases; encyclopaedia readers don't care who the CEO is or what their vision is. They care about what the organisation has actually done. An encyclopaedic piece about this institute would start something like this: "The Sleep to Live Institute is an American commercial laboratory focusing on sleep research. It is based in Joplin, Missouri, and was founded in 2007.(Reference to reliable source). It has a research budget of (however much) and (however many) academic staff.(Reference to reliable source). Its main achievements include (this, that and the other)(source)..."—and so on. Hope this helps—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and Relist. No opinion on the individual notability of the article or the lack thereof. The simple fact is that, other than the nominator, only one editor voted to delete and only the creator argued keep. Both delete votes were horribly short and not well explained. I believe it is still the case that delete opinions must show directly why an article should be deleted, and not the other way around. Relist this and get more arguments and opinions, otherwise closing admin exercised too much self authority without community. Turqoise127 (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Relist if you like, but in its present form I doubt it will pass AfD. I consider every one of the references to be based on PR. I see no indication that the entire project is based on anything other than to sell their mattresses. The article says "Kingsdown’s CEO, Eric Hinshaw moved to change the corporate identity from strictly bed manufacturing to one of also promoting the relationship of sleep and overall health and wellness." but I see no evidence of that. Rather the most extensive souce [1] cited in the article says that the machines are used to design a custom mattress from that particular manufacturer. The cited "award" is from a chain of mattress stores that sells their mattresses.[2]. I see no evidence of any actual research articles. The non-US cites are longer, but no better, than the US ones. But the place to decide this is AfD. What I would try instead, though, is to write an article about Kingsdown where this could have a paragraph. They may be notable as a leading specialist manufacturer., if there are reliable product reviews. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. The debate is sufficiently lengthy that I cannot call it an abuse of discretion to not relist it, bearing in mind that a second relist is normally disfavored per WP:RELIST. There are actually two delete !votes, not counting the nominator. Despite the claim that there are plenty of reliable sources, none has been presented in the AfD or indeed in this DRV. The problem with requiring delete !voters to prove non-notability is that one cannot prove a negative. Thus, once a good-faith search has been conducted, the burden is on the keep !voters to find sources to prove that the subject is notable. Close was in line with the consensus. Keep deleted per DGG and S Marshall. until and unless a better userspace draft is presented. Tim Song (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted; only a single user supported keeping and there was no other possible way the discussion could have been reasonably closed. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Closing admin's comments I closed this as delete based on my reading of consensus in the discussion. The delete !votes were rather spare in their comments, but I thought they were adequate to identify the defect in the article. I did not view consensus that emerged as being sufficiently in question as to justify a second relisting - the article had been up for deletion for two weeks all ready. I offer this remarks by way of explanation, otherwise, as I committed to the nominator (whom I applaud for the manner in which he/she has conducted him/herself) I am neutral. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Sleep to Live Institute – Decision endorsed. The decision was within administrator discretion and a second relist is highly discouraged. The page creator is encouraged to continue to work on the article in userspace and obtain views from experienced editors on what constitute reliable sources in this case. – Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Undeletion request per the recommendation of Xymmax, the administrator that deleted the page originally, as the process has been met with little consensus or discussion fleshing out the issues fully. For ease of reference, I'll provide a synopsis of the process to date:

Created the article with a basic intro, company information and history pertinent to a Bedding & Sleep Research Facility.

RT noted it was well written but had the air of advertising.

Per RT's suggestions I removed trademarks (that I included previously expecting they were more appropriate for documentation).

JohnnyB256 raised issue of non-notability.

I requested specifics and quoted some notability requirements I felt were presented and did not receive any rebuttal. Still, I opted to add some innovations important to the industry along with articles supporting awards given those innovations and doubled secondary sources to alleviate notability concerns. Additionally, I added multiple international interviews on both radio and television that featured the head of the Sleep to Live Institute to further establish the notability of the Institute given international media presence.

Due to lack of consensus the article was relisted.

UltraMagnus mentioned that only 1 of the news articles was, in their opinion, reliable.

I offered some explanation to why the sources were indeed reliable, many of them specific to the relevant industry and again received no further discussion.

Xymmax deleted the article (and will be commenting on rationale so I'll not speak for them). At my request, Xymmax Userfied the article and suggested I present a few of the sources for review with the reliable sources editors, with the indication that if they found the industry publications and international media reliable, the article could be undeleted. I intentionally focused on the international media with a couple industry publications listed (as Xymmax suggested only listing a few); however, there were numerous industry publications with some discussion about the Sleep to Live Institute (the full reference list is on the article).

Simonm223 found that the sources were reliable in establishing notability of the company but suggested changes to the article itself to improve the neutral point of view. DGG didn't feel the information industry publications had adequate focus to be significant; but, did not have input on the international media adding to that. When prompted to get an opinion on how the international media added to the notability, they also failed to enter any further discussion.

At this point, there has still been minimal consensus reached and I have added one additional reference found in another industry publication. I approached Xymmax again and they have suggested this post here to get a "binding opinion".

Please excuse any errors in my posting :) and thank you for your time. Cronides2 (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link fixed, userfied version at User:Cronides2/sandbox/Sleep to Live Institute. Tim Song (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a crime to be more familiar with promotional writing than with writing for an encyclopaedia, but I'm afraid I don't see that material as ready for the mainspace quite yet.
The draft emphasizes the project's aspirations rather than its achievements. If I were you, I'd cut every single mention of what Kingsdown, Inc., hope to do in favour of a more detailed listing of the things they have actually accomplished. Each item listed should be accompanied by discussion of the achievement's impact and significance, supported by a reference to a reliable source.
This piece mentions the company's CEO by name and describes his vision for the future. That's one of the red flags for an article sourced to corporate press releases; encyclopaedia readers don't care who the CEO is or what their vision is. They care about what the organisation has actually done.
An encyclopaedic piece about this institute would start something like this: "The Sleep to Live Institute is an American commercial laboratory focusing on sleep research. It is based in Joplin, Missouri, and was founded in 2007.(Reference to reliable source). It has a research budget of (however much) and (however many) academic staff.(Reference to reliable source). Its main achievements include (this, that and the other)(source)..."—and so on.
Hope this helps—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and Relist. No opinion on the individual notability of the article or the lack thereof. The simple fact is that, other than the nominator, only one editor voted to delete and only the creator argued keep. Both delete votes were horribly short and not well explained. I believe it is still the case that delete opinions must show directly why an article should be deleted, and not the other way around. Relist this and get more arguments and opinions, otherwise closing admin exercised too much self authority without community. Turqoise127 (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist if you like, but in its present form I doubt it will pass AfD. I consider every one of the references to be based on PR. I see no indication that the entire project is based on anything other than to sell their mattresses. The article says "Kingsdown’s CEO, Eric Hinshaw moved to change the corporate identity from strictly bed manufacturing to one of also promoting the relationship of sleep and overall health and wellness." but I see no evidence of that. Rather the most extensive souce [1] cited in the article says that the machines are used to design a custom mattress from that particular manufacturer. The cited "award" is from a chain of mattress stores that sells their mattresses.[2]. I see no evidence of any actual research articles. The non-US cites are longer, but no better, than the US ones. But the place to decide this is AfD. What I would try instead, though, is to write an article about Kingsdown where this could have a paragraph. They may be notable as a leading specialist manufacturer., if there are reliable product reviews. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. The debate is sufficiently lengthy that I cannot call it an abuse of discretion to not relist it, bearing in mind that a second relist is normally disfavored per WP:RELIST. There are actually two delete !votes, not counting the nominator. Despite the claim that there are plenty of reliable sources, none has been presented in the AfD or indeed in this DRV. The problem with requiring delete !voters to prove non-notability is that one cannot prove a negative. Thus, once a good-faith search has been conducted, the burden is on the keep !voters to find sources to prove that the subject is notable. Close was in line with the consensus. Keep deleted per DGG and S Marshall. until and unless a better userspace draft is presented. Tim Song (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted; only a single user supported keeping and there was no other possible way the discussion could have been reasonably closed. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin's comments I closed this as delete based on my reading of consensus in the discussion. The delete !votes were rather spare in their comments, but I thought they were adequate to identify the defect in the article. I did not view consensus that emerged as being sufficiently in question as to justify a second relisting - the article had been up for deletion for two weeks all ready. I offer this remarks by way of explanation, otherwise, as I committed to the nominator (whom I applaud for the manner in which he/she has conducted him/herself) I am neutral. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Michael Panckridge – Overturn. Editors may list the article at AfD if they wish. – NW (Talk) 09:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Michael Panckridge (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) This was deleted as A7 - temporary undeletion requested. I am wanting to see if I can resurrect the article. I don't know anything about the condition of the article; if the undeleting administrator thinks it is a hopeless case, do not bother. — This, that, and the other [talk] 06:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment I have restored per the request. It is a pretty bare stub that certainly would need to be sourced and expanded if kept. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] [3] seems to be the last good revision. Claims to have been published by HarperCollins and have written 20 books seem to be indications of significance. Tim Song (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Indeed. And they seem to be verifiable indications of significance. (Evidence.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn A7. AfD at editorial discretion. Per my previous comment and S Marshall. Tim Song (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] I should just start again, if I were you. There's not enough in the deleted version to worry about ressurecting it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn incorrect A7, in contradiction to the policy. Asserting authorship of 15 novels is an indication of notability. Whether he is actually notable will depend on their reception & the reviews, and must be tested at AfD if the article isn't revised to prove it to the extent that everyone is satisfied. We should always revert speedys like this, because otherwise admins who delete recklessly will never learn. This particular admin is inactive, but we should revert as an example so others come to understand. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Improper application of A7. Notability was indicated. There are plenty of articles which are clear A7's and give no indication of why anyone might care about the subject. This was not one of them, and should be overturned. Such clear errors should be automatically restored.John Z (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, seems potentially notable, AfD could challenge if This, that's resurrection attempt is not fruitful.--Milowent (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Michael Panckridge – Overturn. Editors may list the article at AfD if they wish. – NW (Talk) 09:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This was deleted as A7 - temporary undeletion requested. I am wanting to see if I can resurrect the article. I don't know anything about the condition of the article; if the undeleting administrator thinks it is a hopeless case, do not bother. — This, that, and the other [talk] 06:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have restored per the request. It is a pretty bare stub that certainly would need to be sourced and expanded if kept. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[3] seems to be the last good revision. Claims to have been published by HarperCollins and have written 20 books seem to be indications of significance. Tim Song (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And they seem to be verifiable indications of significance. (Evidence.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn A7. AfD at editorial discretion. Per my previous comment and S Marshall. Tim Song (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should just start again, if I were you. There's not enough in the deleted version to worry about ressurecting it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn incorrect A7, in contradiction to the policy. Asserting authorship of 15 novels is an indication of notability. Whether he is actually notable will depend on their reception & the reviews, and must be tested at AfD if the article isn't revised to prove it to the extent that everyone is satisfied. We should always revert speedys like this, because otherwise admins who delete recklessly will never learn. This particular admin is inactive, but we should revert as an example so others come to understand. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Improper application of A7. Notability was indicated. There are plenty of articles which are clear A7's and give no indication of why anyone might care about the subject. This was not one of them, and should be overturned. Such clear errors should be automatically restored.John Z (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, seems potentially notable, AfD could challenge if This, that's resurrection attempt is not fruitful.--Milowent (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Alvin Fields – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alvin Fields (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Please Consider "Alvin Fields" for Un-Deletion Thanks for the information Robert. Rhasheene (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Malformed DRV fixed. Draft article moved to userspace; available at User:Rhasheene/Alvin Fields. Tim Song (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Cirt (talk · contribs), Spartaz (talk · contribs) and RHaworth (talk · contribs) notified. Tim Song (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] I see I only deleted this as housekeeping to allow a page move but there appears to have been a deletion discussion that could only have been closed as delete so I endorse this subject to proper sourcing being made available. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thanks - I wondered what the G6 is. Tim Song (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the AfD close as a reasonable one, and keep deleted since the draft did nothing to address the concerns raised in AfD. Tim Song (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, this is still in need of better sourcing for the moment.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Alvin Fields – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Please Consider "Alvin Fields" for Un-Deletion Thanks for the information Robert. Rhasheene (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed DRV fixed. Draft article moved to userspace; available at User:Rhasheene/Alvin Fields. Tim Song (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cirt (talk · contribs), Spartaz (talk · contribs) and RHaworth (talk · contribs) notified. Tim Song (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see I only deleted this as housekeeping to allow a page move but there appears to have been a deletion discussion that could only have been closed as delete so I endorse this subject to proper sourcing being made available. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks - I wondered what the G6 is. Tim Song (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AfD close as a reasonable one, and keep deleted since the draft did nothing to address the concerns raised in AfD. Tim Song (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is still in need of better sourcing for the moment.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.