Talk:Peter L. Corsell

Untitled
I would like to note that the new references that were added to the page after the original publication are independent and meet the WP:SECONDARY criteria, which was the only argument posted against this page. It seems as though additional publications that were secondary and well-known, high-profile, etc were added and thus show the significance of the references. The new references added overcome the original claim that the references were “trivial” and “lacked independence”.

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, and meets the full Wikipedia criteria for encyclopedic inclusion under WP:BIO and WP:BASIC. Note that the page was already discussed in the articles for deletion forum and was found to meet the Wikipedia notability and objectivity criteria for inclusion with reliable, independent citations. In addition you can see that a Wikipedia administrator (SarahStierch)also did a thorough review and edit of the page to ensure that it fully met Wikipedia guidelines for a neutral point of view and maintained its encyclopedic purpose. The content of the article was derived from multiple published sources and is factual and informative in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMSguru (talk • contribs) 17:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's ALL positive. Dark Sun (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

There have been a substantial number of edits by multiple independent editors since the article's creation. I've read and re-read the content looking for any information that was not stated simply and factually, with clear citation of the source of the content, or that could be deemed to read as promotional and am not seeing specific content that could be objected to on those grounds. Having said that, any additional eyes are appreciated and if there is text that another editor feels needs to be modified I welcome the improvement of the article. EMSguru (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)