Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Cleveland Clinic/edit requests

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  Redirect to base talk page. (non-admin closure) MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) (please reply using &#x7B;&#x7B;ping&#x7D;&#x7D;) 00:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cleveland Clinic/edit requests


Forked page for COI edit requests, but what has been requested to be edited isn't clear. Requests declined for that reason. Discussion needs to be on the main talk page with the main article. MSJapan (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Posted on Talk:Cleveland Clinic by  the COIREQ received comment from  and, including some removal and restoring.  moved it to the current sub-page per WP:COITALK , and suggested  Talk:Cleveland Clinic. Userfy? Sam Sailor Talk! 10:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly? I wouldn't bother.  The editor is still requesting changes on the main talk page as of six weeks ago, which is whre the material belongs.  I can't make heads or tails of it, and I don't think userfying it is going to help matters.  Some of it may have been done, and some not, and I think this is too old to be useful at this point. MSJapan (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To move this forward, can you comment on the request? I would like to post this content into Wikipedia mainspace. and  said that they wished to review the content but so far as I know, never had any criticism or comments about the content. You posted on the talkpage about new versus old data, but this content is completely unrelated to that issue. The content being reviewed here is all historical. To me, it looks good enough to post into the article. Thanks for any comments you have. If this content can be moved into the article, then yes, this page should be deleted.   Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The edits were declined, and they were declined because it was not possible to ascertain what was bring changed and where it should go; how it was done is not how we do edit requests, precisely for the reason that it is unclear. Elvey very clearly posted that none of the concerns brought up were addressed, and there's certainly a lot of meaningless puffery in there.  There have been several other objections to HealthMonitor's edits, notwithstanding the SPA.  There are more reasons not to add the content than there are to add the content. MSJapan (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I could be mistaken, and I might have missed something, but I do not recall Elvey ever saying anything about this content except that it needed review.
 * All of this content is new, so no one needs to check for changes. The proposal is to add new content.
 * I am not aware of any particular concerns raised. Here is the previous discussion -
 * Talk:Cleveland_Clinic/Archive_1
 * You say, "Elvey very clearly posted that none of the concerns brought up were addressed" - can you point me to these concerns? I am unable to find them. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, you don't understand what I'm saying - it's not a content problem where "the content needs to be checked for changes." When an edit request is made, the editor making the request needs to provide the original content as well as what they want it changed to so the third party making the edit knows what is being changed. That wasn't done, and I don't care whether the content is new or not - the changes can't be made as presented.  Second of all, right at the top of Talk:Cleveland Clinic/edit requests is what I am referring to, not archived stuff on another talk page. MSJapan (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct - I fail to understand you and feel like we are looking at completely different issues. It is difficult for me to understand anything you are saying, and I am almost sure we are not considering the same issue at all. Forgive me for being slow.
 * Whatever the case - are you saying that for this content to be reviewed, it would first need to be posted again in live article? I am confused because Elvey and SV previously wanted this content reviewed outside the context of the live article, and often, questioned content gets reviewed on a subpage. If it is helpful to you, I will copypaste this content into the live article. I would not remove anything, and if you reviewed the content, you would see exactly the text here except that it would be in context of the main article. Nothing would be removed or changed in the main article, except additional text would be added. Is this what you are requesting? Can you confirm that you understand that this exact content was removed from the main article? Can you confirm that no one is talking about changing any existing text, except for the addition of content here to the main article there?
 * I confirm that I see Elvey's statement "I renew all my objections noted elsewhere. They have not been addressed". Can you help me find the objections which are left unanswered? Please, really, I am having trouble understanding what is left undone.
 * Thanks for your attention. Sorry for the confusion.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Very simply, read WP:EDITREQ; that procedure was not followed. The material was specifically asked not to be put in the article, therefore you may not put it in the article. SV asked that the material be placed on a page, and it was. Elvey's concerns were not addressed,  and no consensus was reached in ten months.  As a matter of fact, no further discussion took place, and 10 months is long enough to have waited.  I honestly see no reason to add the material, either; it adds nothing of encyclopedic value and is almost entirely irrelevant.  Fifty years from now, does it matter what they were ranked in 2010 vs. 2011, or how many specific countries patients came from, or that someone was CEO for a few years? This article isn't about trivia. MSJapan (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand, but I could try to talk it through. I just emailed you proposing a voice or video conversation. If you do not want to talk live, then I will reply here. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am kind of in a corner here. Perhaps our conversation is over. Here is my situation, and here is what I am doing next:
 * I have requested edit reviews several times. The bureaucracy never ends. There is no correct option for me. The text is submitted and after a year, I do not think a review of the content through this process is anyone's priority.
 * You say several times that Elvey has unaddressed concerns. Elvey says the same thing. I continue to say that I have never seen them after looking for them and asking for them. I am not disputing the concerns - I am just doubting their existence.
 * I am told to not add the content to the article.
 * I have asked all parties involved to talk by voice or video. No one is interested.
 * Enough time has been sunk into this.
 * I think this is good content.
 * When you talk about ranks, trivia, 2010 to 2011, I think you are looking at some other issue on the talk page and not this content. I get the idea that we are not even considering the same text.
 * I intend to move this content to a new article at History of Cleveland Clinic. I feel like AfD is a more objective review process than what is happening here. As a courtesy and to respect Wikipedia community customs, I am telling you first in case you have more to say. After I move the content, I would be extremely grateful to you if you would AfD it and post your reasons why it should be deleted. What I have always wanted for this content is the sort of objections that might be raised at AfD. I hope you find it to be a satisfactory resolution to this if I position the content in the mainspace with intent to allow anyone to delete it from there in the usual process.
 * I sincerely apologize for the difficulty communicating about this. The fault is mine. I am seeking the most efficient resolution to this I can imagine. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  12:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If the content was acceptable, it would have been added. As far as I am concerned, two editors said it was no good.  You seem to think that because SV and Elvey commented on the archived talk threads and in edit summaries, that the subpage edits are OK "because you can't find it."  I had no problem finding the information.  There are plenty of threads on the Cleveland Clinic talk page archive where this content was dealt with, and you've read the COIN discussion in the past because you linked to it.  In all cases, the request was to break the requests down, and that has not been done. Creating a new article just to be AfDed is disruptive editing.  I think the issue is that you want to add content that you know is no good, and you're going to keep creating a problem until someone gives in and says yes, despite the fact that three people and a COIN discussion said no.  Since you cannot show me a single place where the requested edits were broken down, there will be no changes, there will be no wholesale changing of the article, and there will be no new article created "just for AfD".  I don't know what is so hard for you to understand. MSJapan (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the talk page and move on. We shouldn't do that but we shouldn't delete the edits either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect or otherwise clean up without deleting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.