Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleep to Live Institute


 * 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   delete. While the delete arguments could have been fleshed out more, the sources in the article, consisting primarily of industry publications, do not seem to estiablish notability. I am willing to userfy this article upon request so that sources establishing notability can be added. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sleep to Live Institute

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Looks like advertising, but well written - so not completely sure  RT |  Talk  19:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets basic notable guidelines of significant, reliable, secondary sources cited accordingly. Additionally, this is an R&D facility that is not marketing/advertising anything. It does research. Cronides2 (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Added additional content of notable innovations developed by the Sleep to Live Institute and media coverage both domestic and abroad to further alleviate concerns of non-notability. Additionally, secondary sources with those additions have doubled. Feel free to provide further feedback if there are additional concerns and/or suggestions to better improve the content. Thanks Cronides2 (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete only a single g news hit, and that is just an interview with someone from them as a psuedoexpert UltraMagnusspeak 10:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Cronides2 (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Magnus, can you be more specific with your concern? There are 11 references and/or links to external news sources that include several US, nation-wide publications (regardless of your personal familiarity with them) in addition to two Australian programs (one of which include the "ABC" name that you may be focusing on for its obvious familiarity to anyone). News sources are not defined as good based on individual familiarity, or more to the point, lack thereof with those that are pertinent to the industry represented. Cronides2 (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Additionally, the purpose of listing the interviews with Dr. Oexman (the head of the Sleep to Live Institute) are specifically to establish his notability as an expert in the field (beyond his credentials as a Dr. trained in Sleep with work at Sleep Labs at Stanford under Dr. Dement, University of Toronto, and Harvard) that is invited to speak in the media and at public venues. Cronides2 (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability concerns have been addressed. Multiple industry-significant, reliable, secondary sources present. Users claiming reasons for deletion have not posed a valid argument or any discussion in regard to claims. Cronides2 (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.