Futz! ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I anticipate this being a difficult deletion review due to the relatively small number of reliable sources, but I'll try to make my case anyways. Please consider that this television show is a series of shorts and that the sourcing standards for notability should perhaps not be set quite as high as for those normally aired in regular timeslots due to this.

Anyways, here are the new reliable sources I've found:

• [1], [2], and [3]
• [4] and [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

The following reliable source was already present in the most recently deleted revision, but I have found additional links from it besides the first one:

• [9], [10], [11], and [12]

Lastly but quite possibly most importantly, this show was nominated for an award. Yes, it was only a nomination, not a win, but I think it still adds to its notability significantly:

• [13]

I would also like to ask that you take into consideration that DRV is apparently not supposed to be as stringent as AFD in terms of sourcing requirements. More importantly, please consider that WP:GNG only requires multiple reliable sources, so even two such sources could theoretically suffice. Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 19:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Futz! is a Teletoon (Canada) original serices that started airing in 2007. The reference

• Tonight'sTV Complete daily listings in Go@home, The Hamilton Spectator, August 24, 2007, retrieved November 2, 2013

mentions Futz. Dogmaticeclectic - if you put your sources in the Template:Citation, it will make it easier for editors to evaluate them. -- Jreferee ( talk) 03:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• I'd allow creation of an article based on those sources without prejudice to a subsequent AfD. NB: I was invited to participate in this DRV by a note on my talk page, although the note was appropriate and not in any way a violation of WP:CANVASS. I'd have participated anyway, of course, as regular DRV closers are no doubt aware...— S Marshall T/ C 13:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Note that I left such notes at the user talk pages of all users who participated in a very similar recent discussion here. Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 14:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation and we will then judge it at AfD. That's a more suitable place than here. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation - The "STRONG Delete and SALT" reactions almost a year ago at the AfD seem to be more of a reaction to creating the article after an undelete request was denied, twice. the topic probably still does not meet WP:GNG even with the new sources. They are new sources, so AfD is a better place to evaluate them. The show consists of 26 episodes, so someone probably wrote about it, but it may not appear online. Dogmaticeclectic, I think if you make a trip to your local main library branch or university library and find source material that does not appear online, that may go far to sway those participating in the next AfD. I was invited to participate in this DRV by a note on my talk page, but it appeared after I already commented above. -- Jreferee ( talk) 00:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply

RIDC ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Note to readers, this is 1/6th of the discussion (there are 5 other threads on talk pages I was invited to). All concerns (some of which are raised only at the other talk pages) have been edited some on the userfied as of Nov. 4 ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 13:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Less than an hour of time allowance was provided despite over 5 hours of work and dozens of edits on the page (even 2 edits to address the original editors tag after the tag was assigned).

• 3 notices were posted to concerned Wikiprojects around 6AM EDT so not only was no consensus reached, no consensus was even started.
• Despite it being a new article the topic is comparable to a Research Triangle Park & was intended to not clutter wikipedia with a dozen+ notable business research parks but provide a consolidated streamlined article on most of them, sites that have similar or more notability than those wikipedia has articles for at Business Parks or Research Parks.
• The original reasons given for justification of a speedy deletion were addressed on the article's talk page but were never responded to until after the page was deleted (and responded to by the 2nd editor on his/her talk page) despite 4 press articles and multiple agreements with 'Fortune 500'/'Forbes Largest' on the 58 year old public/private organization, one of which included State legislative hearings notability was raised.

-- ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 11:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment At the request of the editor, I have userfied the article. It can be found here: User:Marketdiamond/RIDC. Stephen! ^Coming... 12:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Appreciation to StephenBuxton on retrieving it for sandbox but the article (tho not perfect) should be able to stand on its own after what I contributed and allowed to be edited live on the encyclopedia, even if it is tagged for improvement in other ways, thanks. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 12:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Unresolved
  ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 22:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Apologies on interrupting the pin drops but it is up to almost 40 RSs and this only takes us up to 1981, and in less than 18 hours (about 6 editing hours) it may help the wikipedia policy against article ownership if the 100+ 1982-2013 citations could be opened up to the community, as well as the discussion on editors concerns to the centralized talk page. So many wikiarticles link to it just before 1982 that having talk page discussions at Volkswagon, Carnegie Mellon University, the Appalachian Commission, US Steel etc. will add that clutter and confusion that speedy delete was intended for. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• You write "the 100+ 1982-2013 citations could be opened up to the community ..." Did someone delete these citations from Wikipedia? I could not find them. The RIDC was established August 8, 1955, so the topic should meet WP:GNG. The user space draft has so much promotional language, that it's hard to figure out what the topic is about. As near as I can tell, RIDC is a private company that develops land in Southwestern Pennsylvania for business that make a profit and does so as a non-profit. Do you see anything wrong with "modern tenants," foster, diversify, "catalyze and support economic growth with quality job creation through real estate development to advance the public interest", "captures emerging and existing growth opportunities across diverse industry sectors" "A dynamic, regional economic development" "handle some of Pittsburgh's most challenging", "a dynamic economic development portfolio through preserving, strengthening and expanding "? Instead of trying to write about the topic, summarize what the independent reliable sources write about the topic using neutral language. Put each of your sources in Template:Citation. Look over a few of the Category:GA-Class organization articles articles to get an idea of how to write such articles. -- Jreferee ( talk)

Thank you for the response Jreferee. When the articles talk page is up (and thus the article) a discussion of this would be more beneficial for the encyclopedia. The 100+ post 1981 citations are standing by, since almost 40 have been added to a "speedily deleted" article, why bother with 50 or 60 etc. or any major language improvements. You're comments are useful for a live article (and are echoing 2 other editors on their talk pages, my talk page & other wikiproject talk pages).

Long to short, this is the forum where an article is determined solely to be encyclopedic, or can I start answering all these points here and asking about tone or neutrality when really the articles talk page or tags should be the proper place? ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Your specific quotes of concern I dulled down, part of the problem I keep seeing both in this thread and on all other multiple threads (again no talk page so we now have several conversations overlapping) is that the article has too much non-neutral language, but as you put it Jreferee those "independent sources" currently listed also tend to describe the RIDC in this way (tho it is a lot of reading). The reason is state governors, global conglomerates from Volkswagon to Gulf Oil to Sony to US Steel, federal commissions, the who's who of those in SW Pennsylvania and such academics as Carnegie Mellon University all use the RIDC as a clearinghouse of sorts and co-ordinating arm to plan, research, develop and network resources in a quarter of Pennsylvania. If the language was a bit over the top it is from those citations of CEOs Westinghouse is meeting with a leading researchers and discussing this with the Governor's economic chief and the County Commissioners so yes even the RSs frame it as the cat's meow not because it claims to be but because the organizations and people with the power have chosen to centralize economic development issues in it since the beginning. That said I toned down some of the language but the citations do surprise on what this organization had its fingers in, again not because it is bragging but simply because it was the efficient means to an end. I'll take another look at the intro but given that this entity is involved in the vast majority of development and redevelopment I am open to suggestions on what if anything we can do to lessen confusion on its own talk page. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Restore with no prejudice to immediately listing it at AFD if requested by any editor. The article has been improved with the addition of numerous print sources since User:DGG put speedy deletion tags on it, and while I'm not 100% convinced of its notability, it's grey enough to warrant further discussion and community examination before being deleted. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 07:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC). reply
• Still promotional. The problem at this time is not notability, but promotionalism. The jargon-filled languague is still present. It should not be restored until it has been rewritten. After that I have no objections DGG ( talk ) 12:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

As stated above, specific suggestions I dulled. A non-profit has no need to be promotional, yet the language is dulled down from press reports/official site & once again it is the regional 800 pound gorilla with governor offices, mayors & area CEOs making it so. Press refer to it as an "agency". If it becomes more dulled down it risks becoming unencyclopedic by not stating that it did "handle some of Pittsburgh's most challenging" (which has been dulled down & removed), when RSs use the terminology for a job that CEOs & Governors can't fix then "jargon" & "promotionalism" should be in the article. I'm not Speedy Deleting the Redsox 2013 Championship. Promotional much, yeah. The cites added to the userfied may be instructive, if this is the defacto talk page for article improvement (I was under the impression this was to determine if RIDC should exist at all). ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 12:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Of course a non-profit does need to be promotional. It needs public support, and continued founding. It needs awareness of its operations. It tries to have a good reputation. Its executives want to stay in operation, and look for expansion. all of this requires public relations and promotion and advertising, just as much as any profit-making enterprise. We write in English, not jargon, no matter what other sources do, except in direct quotations. The language PR people use, whether or not journalists copy it, is not the language an encyclopedia uses.

This discussion is to determine whether it is obviously so promotional that it would require extensive rewriting beyond normal editing. If it is that promotional, then it was properly speedy deleted via CSD G11, and the above defense of the promotionalism confirms my view that it indeed was appropriately deleted. If the speedy is upheld, your recourse is to try to write a proper article. If the speedy is overturned as not being hopeless, then anyone may do the necessary editing, or take it to AfD for a community decision of whether, regardless of obviousness, it's too contaminated to be worth keeping. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply

The purpose of this DRV discussion is to determine whether the "Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11" [14] speedy deletion was done outside of the speedy deletion criteria. See WP:DRVPURPOSE. Everything discussed in this DRV outside of that is more along the lines of commentary or advise, but the DRV closeer still will read it and may have some influence on the close. Regarding your 12:59, 2 November 2013 comments above, "Jargon" & "promotionalism" are opinions, which are not capable of being proven true. Facts are something capable of being proven true. Both opinions and facts can appear separately in Wikipedia articles. Sometimes "Jargon" & "promotionalism" overlay facts in sources, and republishing "Jargon" & "promotionalism" overlaying facts in Wikipedia makes it difficult for readers to figure out whether something is a fact or opinion. Some other suggestions - Positioning a list of Research Parks currently being run by RIDC above the history of the corporation in the Wikipedia article is promotional. Also, each of those research parks are chronological events that should be part of the prose history. Choosing to list the for fee services offered by the company in a list instead of presenting the information in prose form in the context of the company history again is promotional. This is a topic whose age and regional importance make it one that can have engaging, even brilliant, prose of a professional standard. Yet, the draft only has a few sentences and then, bam!, here is two detailed lists of pay-for services for which Wikipedia readers can contact RIDC if they are interested. As of this post, the article has 63 references. Yet, the draft only has about 400 prose words. [15] You don't seem to be summarizing what the sources say. Instead, it appears that you are writing what you want to say about the company and then listing sources at the end of the sentence as a way of supporting the conclusion you posted. WP:SYNTH notes, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Is the conclusion "It has partnered with the Appalachian Regional Commission, Carnegie Mellon University the Heinz Endowments and the Richard King Mellon Foundation among others[41][42][43][44]" your personal conclusion or is it a statement in each of the four sources? I'm posting this for your consideration. It does seems likely that the draft eventually will be moved back to article space and the topic will survive AfD. Hopefully, you will continue to work on improving it. -- Jreferee ( talk) 01:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks, tho I haven't read relevance in the other 80 cites. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply

To answer your question (I initially read it 'for consideration only') it is a sourced statement. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 00:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Restore This is arguably notable and should be restored, with the possibility of AFD afterward. Content issues of promotionality and jargonishness is a content problem, not notability.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 00:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Restore per GrapedApe. Much clean up is needed, but WP:IMPERFECT. CrazyPaco ( talk) 05:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Restore after a week of careful consideration of all 6 threads & the helpful Wikipedia links included therein with the corresponding contributions (by an additional editor as well) to the article. The more I study the suggestions here the more I realize this really need its own dedicated talk page. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 13:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply