Joseph Steinberg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This deletion and salting was wrong and violating WP:OZD , WP:BEFORE and WP:AUTHOR

The salting is ridiculous as the reason cited repeated deletions from over a decade ago when he was not notable.

I created this article after discussing with the Administrator that deleted it after the 3rd AFD that the subject had become notable after that AFD. He agreed and I worked to recreate it. He is even more notable now.

Then this AFD happens. I heard about this AFD after the deletion was already done. From what I can see other people who worked on the article were not notified either. Nobody in the AFD process bothered to do WP:BEFORE and a discussion never took place. The article could easily have been improved but nobody bothered. When I spoke with the Administrator who deleted it and asked him to restore the AFD for a discussion he gave ridiculous answers. You can read them at User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2018/April#Article_Joseph_Steinberg.

This whole AFD is ridiculous. The article is about someone who clearly meets all 4 of the guidelines of WP:AUTHOR not just 1. Nobody did WP:BEFORE and looked how many times he is cited by peers and others, what books he wrote, or how many articles have been written about him and his work. All of this was left out of the AFD.

Here is from WP:AUTHOR:

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. ¡This article is about someone who is extremely widely cited by peers and the media. There are probably millions of quotations from his articles in other articles. I provided the deleting Administrator the example of one of his articles that appears to have been quoted from over 12,000 times. A Google search, Google news search, on his name with various topics related to his field shows this clearly!

2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. ¡His inventions are cited by other inventors in almost 200 patent filings as can be seen on his Google Scholar page!

3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. ¡He is the author of several books including the official textbook used by senior people in his field to study for certification exams that also goes back to point #1 above and he has written probably a thousand articles in his field that are frequently quoted!

4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. ¡His books are in every major library related to his field!

All of this can be seen in WP:RS. This deletion is ridiculous and the AFD was not handled right. It should be reversed or at least the AFD should be reopened for a discussion by people willing to actually look at the facts and work on the article. The people who worked on the article should be notified too. Thetechgirl ( talk) 21:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn salting and permit recreation I think it is pretty clear that Steinberg is in fact notable, and the AfD result was mistaken. However, the AfD was procedurally correct, and on the discussion could not have been closed as anything other than keep. No WP:BEFORE search was described in the nom, but none was asked for, and I do not know what search was in fact done. But to salt based in large part on prior noms in 2007 and 2006 is not reasonable, and the salting should be overturned. The deleted version did not establish Steinberg's notability as clearly as it might have done. Permit the deleted version to be draftified for improvement, and moved back to mainspace once notability is more clearly established. Failing that, permit a new draft from scratch. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 01:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and Keep – It does seem that the way that this AfD was conducted did violate WP:RULES, as WP:BEFORE is not optional (“Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to: A. B. C. D.”), and, it seems pretty clear that that someone who properly performed the steps in WP:BEFORE would not have nominated this article for deletion due to a lack of notability, certainly not without providing some reason as to why the many reliable sources that result from a Google search do not establish notability. Either way, as both parties said above, it is pretty clear that the subject is notable (easily passes WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE for the reasons stated above). This article should be restored and improved. Also, it is wrong to SALT for repeated deletions based on eleven- and twelve-year-old AfDs about a living person whose notability appears to have been achieved in the last few years. Jersey92 ( talk) 04:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I always find it interesting, that people who complain about people not doing WP:BEFORE don't seem to consider the fact that perhaps the person did do it but didn't find anything worthy of considering as being independent, and significant. I don't find anything from the google search that would count as being a source for GNG, and it is likely I wouldn't even address them because nothing significant is there to address - I would hope that say the linkedin and inc profiles are self-evidently non-independent, and hits in the byline are self-evidently non-significant. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 11:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

In essence, for your certainly not without providing some reason as to why the many reliable sources that result from a Google search do not establish notability, this: Most of the sources seem to be articles that he himself wrote. Very little if any independent sources to support notability. from the nom covers it that I see Galobtter ( pingó mió) 11:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

What are you talking about??? There are thousands of his peers citing his articles that show up in Google searches and many major media publications citing his articles as well. As a writer he is notable if he is "is widely cited by peers or successors" and IN LESS THAN 1 MINUTE OF DOING GOOGLE SEARCHES I FOUND MANY TENS OF THOUSANDS of citations like that. And as a writer of course most of the stuff that shows up on the first few pages is from him but a search with other keywords shows many people citing him. Did you bother to check? Here is one example: [1] Do you see 12,600 results? On the first pages there are mixed from him and citations after that they are almost all citations in articles, books and video. Please look into this again.-- Thetechgirl ( talk) 18:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I don't see anything procedurally wrong with the AfD. Also, I don't always talk about a WP:BEFORE search when I nominate articles, but it does not mean I have not performed one. Furthermore, and I think this is off topic but since others have brought it up, my own WP:BEFORE search here brings up a LinkedIn page, his inc.com account, his own personal webpage, and several links to an urologist and a billionaire, so I may have nominated it had I come across it. I have no problems with allowing someone to create a new draft, though, but I have my doubts about WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 05:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Did you do this search [2] or ANY others on ANY topics about which he has written? How many times does someone have to be cited to be considered "widely cited by his peers" per WP:AUTHOR? Did you check the links that you cited? His "inc.com account" as you called is a column which is what writers have not an account. Seriously??? You are ignoring evidence that is sitting on the Internet in plain site. Thetechgirl ( talk) 18:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion- Ultimately, when you have two editors in good standing considering the available sources and finding them insufficient, on an article that's been deleted several times for the same problems previously, and without anyone arguing it should be kept-- I think it's very obvious that the correct close was performed. Also support salting; ordinarily I'd have no strong opinion about whether it should remain salted but, given the attacks on the closing admin, the wikilawyerish BEFORE-thumping, and the fact that all previous incarnations of this article were promotorials I do now strongly support salting it. Allowing it to be re-created would just lead to more disruption and wasted time. Reyk _YO! 07:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

So you are saying that we should ignore whether the article belongs in Wikipedia but decide based on the feelings of editors. Seriously??? This whole discussion is ridiculous. Thetechgirl ( talk) 18:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

No, that isn't what I said. Reyk _YO! 20:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Reyk, two people is not a huge consensus for an AfD, even if both are experienced users. You have experienced users here saying that Steinberg is in fact notable. Note that when notability is established via WP:CREATIVE, the sources may not be such as would fit the classic WP:GNG mode, but be of value noen the less. In that case the things that the subject has written (or drawn or painted or otherwise created) become very significant, provided that they have been cited or otherwise regarded as significant by reliable sources. I for one have been careful not to do BEFORE-thumping although i did raise the issue of what turned up in a BEFORE search. The results of a discussion such as this should not mdepend on they style of argument used, but on the facts displayed. Thetechgirl a bit less stridency here might be more persuasive. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 22:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• As closer, I stand by my closure, based on the unanimous AfD, the threee previous deletions, and the fact that even after the deletion, when asked to provide the best sources about the subject at User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2018/April#Article Joseph Steinberg, the DRV nominator did not provide any references to any substantial coverage of the subject whatsoever. Sandstein 07:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I did and you chose to ignore them and 3 even had his name in the headline. Also, as an WP:AUTHOR he needs to be widely cited, not have articles written about him. Read WP:AUTHOR. Thetechgirl ( talk) 18:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion and salting closure is of course fine, per Reyk. Endorse salting per there seems to be some tendentiousness here, promotion, and quite a bit of canvassing at the previous AfD. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 12:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and keep I should’ve put these words in my original listing. Either reopen the AFD for discussion or keep the article and work to improve it. Thetechgirl ( talk) 18:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn, Keep, And Improve The Article

Hi. I haven’t edited in a while, but I did work on this piece a while back. Thank you for notifying me about this discussion.

It appears to me as if there are two groups involved in this discussion: One is quickly saying delete because the AfD procedure was correct and the article was deleted 3x in the past, and the other which is actually spending time to look into the details of the matter and saying not to delete because the procedure was improper and/or Steinberg is clearly notable.

I just spent an hour looking into this. (I have a little guilt for using Wikipedia and not volunteering for a long time.)

Here are my conclusions:

Steinberg is clearly notable. If you look into the matter there is zero question about this.

If you look at criteria #1 listed above for authors it is "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."

1) If you do a recent Google News search on Steinberg’s name 1 you will see that his opinion column on his personal website is carried ->as news<- by Google News. This is an example of being cited and his opinion being regarded as important as Google News rarely cites opinion columns and does so only when they are of importance.

2) If you search you will find that all of his social media accounts are verified by the major social media companies. It is obvious from this that others in the technology field regard him with importance. Looking at his Twitter I see that he has 112,000 followers which is another sign. 2

3) Google searches turn up a lot of Wikipedia Reliable Sources quoting him multiple times as an "expert", including BBC, Newsweek, Reuters, CNBC, Fox, CNN, USA Today, Business Insider, Forbes, Inc. and many technical publications and blogs. This also points to "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." I am listing a few examples here but there are many more: 3 4 5 4 6 7

4) His articles are quoted in research papers from known institutes. For example: 8

5) Some more search information: A search on Joseph Steinberg turns up 416,000 results 9, of course not all are about him and some are from his own site, but many are major Wikipedia Reliable Sources quoting him as an expert (and they describe him as an expert), news reports of him being appointed to the boards of several companies (example: 10), sites listing him as a top cybersecurity expert to follow on social media (example: 11) and announcements by various cybersecurity and other shows of his speaking there (example 12 13). Of course there are also many pieces written by him but that is not a problem because it is exactly what we should expect would happen for a writer.

6) A search on his name and cybersecurity turns up many results, including an IBM website that has him as a guest writer and states that he is an expert. 14 15

7) As described earlier in this discussion, a search on his name and heartbleed shows over 12,000 results. 16

8) A search on his name and smartgun shows his writing quoted in the media and government documents about 100 times. 17

9) Steinberg’s name also appears in the headlines of several pieces including one in Forbes. 18

10) A Google Scholar search shows him cited 199 times! 19 (That on its own probably meets criteria #2 above (" The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.") combined with the others this should be obvious notability.)

11) I did a bunch of other such searches on topics that he wrote about and he is cited the same way there.

If we all agree that being cited tens or hundreds of thousands of times is "widely cited" then it is an objective fact that he is widely cited. This is not open to debate unless you consider tens or even hundreds of thousands of times cited not to be widely cited and I think that would fit the word of the nominator of "ridiculous".

So:

He obviously meets the Wikipedia standard for WP:AUTHOR notability. And those who say otherwise seem to be basing their opinions on false claims about search results.

Also, this discussion should not be a personal fight between editors or about deletions from 11/12 years ago, or about whether editors did the right thing. The questions now are: I)) Does the article that was there belong in Wikipedia II)) If the article was bad and does not belong should Wikipedia prevent any article from being created about Steinberg or should a new one be written

I feel the answer to #1 is Yes.

Even if the answer to #1 is No, the answer to #2 is for sure No.

So:

Overturn And Keep and for sure Do Not Salt but if the piece was not good enough as is let’s fix it.

One more note on this topic:

You are entitled to disagree with my opinion, but you are not entitled to make up your own facts. If you are writing that a Google search turns up just pages that Steinberg wrote or anything similar then you are saying something that is ->objectively false<- and your opinion based on false information should be ignored by the Administrator who closes out this discussion. It's not good faith if someone provides you with sources and you ignore them. DoctorBob3 ( talk) 21:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion The most recent afd had relatively few comments, but the earlier ones had abundant discussion. The decisions was rational: being quoted is not enough for notability . Writing a column can be, if there is substantial discussion of it, rather than just reprinting it, but I do not think this has been demonstrated. I doubt there's any other probable notability--WP:PROF is not remotely met--there's one technical book only. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Being quoted is not enough, but being "widely cited by peers or successors" is. It is the first thing listed in WP:AUTHOR as two people pointed out above, and, as was pointed out by the user DoctorBob3, it is not debatable that he is widely cited. People cite him because they care what he thinks. They do not write about him personally because they do not care what he wears or who he dates. He is a writer who produces influential pieces, not a Kardashian going to the Met Gala.-- Jersey92 ( talk) 13:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC) reply

But he is Kim Kardashian's cybersecurity adviser! [3] [4]. These are also more sources about him. Thetechgirl ( talk) 13:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Strongly endorse deletion and salting- As the nominator, of the XfD I support the result. Not even sure where to begin here, as there are a lot of things claimed in this discussion that are simply not true. First, the claim by User:Thetechgirl "I heard about this AFD after the deletion was already done." That's simply not true. She was notified on April 13 when the AfD opened [5]. Between that time and April 29 when the discussion was closed she logged in at least twice and participated in another AfD [6]. Being that the notice was on her talk page, she should have known, why she chose not to participate, I do not know. Perhaps, because she planned on recreating the article after it was deleted just like last time? That's why the salting was requested, the subject was already determined to be not notable three times and yet the articles lives on.
  

Second, a BEFORE search was performed and I determined that everything on this guy is either self-published or just articles where they have a few quotes from him. He was quoted by Forbes (or CNN, or fill in the blank) is not notability. As per WP:BASIC, there needs to be in-depth coverage of him, he has to be the subject of multiple articles and this was not met. A lot of the keep arguments above a based on Google hits, that is not an indicator of notability eithier.

Third, there seems to be a canvassing effort going on here: [7] [8] [9]-- Rusf10 ( talk) 19:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment: Rusf10's opinion seems to be based on false accusations that he made against another editor - I am starting to see why Thetechgirl called this discussion ridiculous. You accused Thetechgirl of lying, and it is clear from the logs that you are the one not telling the truth. There is no record of her doing anything during the AfD process, and no record of her participating in another AfD during the AfD process. You accused her of canvassing, but the accounts that were canvassed were all editors who worked on the article. WP:PEOPLE states:

If an article does not explain the notability of its subject,[15] try to improve it by:

Adding the cleanup biography template, which requests birthdate, historical significance, etc.

Rewriting it yourself

Asking the article's editor(s) for advice. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

You were supposed to go to those people and did not, so Thetechgirl did, and then you complain of canvassing and accuse her of lying? I normally assume good faith, but with the false claims made about the lack of sources and the false claims about Thetechgirl, I am starting to wonder. The result of this discussion should be to Overturn and Keep as those who actually present true facts and not false facts in their arguments are saying. Salting should be out of the question. Jersey92 ( talk) 04:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

See response below-- Rusf10 ( talk) 06:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the AfD itself and the closure was fine. Although it was brief the article has been previously deleted three times at AfD, most recently in 2014 (which has hardly "over a decade ago" as claimed). That leaves whether significant information has some to light which justifies revisiting the issue, and I don't think it has. I don't see any evidence that the subject meets WP:BASIC, which is the main thing to consider. The sources cited in the deleted article were all either written by the subject himself or were cases where the subject was cited/quoted briefly in an article about something else. I'm not seeing anything substantially better presented here either (if there's some fantastic source I've missed then feel free to point it out). The other claim is that the subject meets WP:AUTHOR. This isn't usually considered as important as meeting WP:BASIC (People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included). Furthermore the evidence for meeting WP:AUTHOR is largely that the subject is frequently quoted in the news media on technology subjects, which is pretty thin. Given the repeated deletions on notability grounds I suggest any proponents come up with a draft which they think convincingly demonstrates the notability of the subject and bring it here for review. Hut 8.5 18:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• What I said above was that But to salt based in large part on prior noms in 2007 and 2006 is not reasonable, and the salting should be overturned. The first two nominations were in 2006 and 2007, which is "over a decade ago". If those are discounted, there is only one previous nomination, which does not make a strong case for salting. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 22:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Also, the editor who deleted after the third AfD agreed that the article could be recreated and he would not nominate for deletion, and most of the notability happened after that point anyway. User_talk:Nick/Archive15#Article:_"Joseph_Steinberg" Jersey92 ( talk) 04:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Look at it another way: it's been deleted twice at AfD in recent years. That would in itself be reasonable grounds for salting. Salting doesn't mean nobody can create another article, it just puts the burden of proof onto the people who think the article is appropriate, instead of having another discussion every few years because someone feels like it. We are generally pretty lax about letting people recreate deleted articles as long as they deal with the reason that the page is deleted, which didn't happen here. If an article is deleted too many times though people shouldn't be surprised if the title gets salted. Hut 8.5 06:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

It was deleted 2 times 1 time when the Admin said it should be recreated and 1 time when the editors who worked on it were not notified. Thetechgirl ( talk) 13:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Strong Overturn and Keep: A. After seeing the AfD nominator Rusf10 make false accusations against about the creator of the article Thetechgirl, and seeing many false claims above about a lack of WP:RS, I changed this to strong as I am even more suspicious now that the AfD process was improper. B. I am not sure why people are having a hard time understanding WP:AUTHOR. Different kinds of people become notable with different criteria. For example. There can be zero sources about someone other than he served a state legislature 150 years ago and we consider the person notable, we don't need articles with significant coverage because he meets WP:POLITICIAN even without it, and we do not delete because of WP:GNG. There can be zero sources about someone other than general records that he played one game of fully professional baseball 100 years ago and he is considered notable because he meets WP:ATHLETE, and we do not delete because of WP:GNG. Authors become notable by the criteria in WP:AUTHOR, they don't need substantial coverage about them in addition, and if they meet WP:AUTHOR we don't delete because of WP:GNG. C. This article appears to have been deleted with some degree of bad faith and the subject is clearly notable. I apologize for bolding and italicizing this but I think it is very important for people to see these points. I am done with this discussion, as I am on a reduced Wikipedia schedule and whatever time I have for Wikipedia I will use for productive editing and not arguing. Jersey92 ( talk) 04:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Jersey92:, the extended bold content is really obnoxious and unnecessary. I have not made any false accusations. Fact #1: TheTechGirl was notified of the AfD on the very same day the discussion started April 13 [10] Fact #2: The discussion closed on April 29 Fact #3: Her contributions log prove she was active between those dates [11], so I'd have to believe she saw the red icon at the top of her screen telling her she had a message on her talk page Fact #4: Twice first on April 20 and again on April 24, she participated in another AfD. She received proper notification and btw when I nominate an article for AfD, I am not required to notify anyone, but I always do notify the creator as a courtesy. And about canvassing, if she was going to notify anyone else she should have at least notified myself (and the other participant in the AfD) about the DRV too, not just people who would support her position. I just happened to stumble across it when I went to DRV to look at something else. Your comments above accusing me of not telling the truth are clearly wrong, so please strike them.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 06:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I will not strike them because you did falsely accuse an editor of lying, and your proof that she was active during an AfD last month is a link to an AfD from last year. Please do not tag me or respond to me here. I am done with this discussion. I believe the AfD process was flawed from the start, and that you either have a WP:COI or were careless in doing the WP:BEFORE the same way you were careless in accusing her now. I am bolding to make sure this point is seen by all. Jersey92 ( talk) 06:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Jersey92:, my mistake with the dates, I apologize. When I saw the contribution log with April 24 and April 30 right next to each other, I did not realize the years were different. I have struck parts of my comments above.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 15:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I accept your apology. But now please put back the article because the deletion and salting was wrong and violating WP:OZD , WP:BEFORE and WP:AUTHOR. Thetechgirl ( talk) 13:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment In spite of my vote above, it seems procedurally like there's only one answer: to endorse the closing. There was nothing wrong with Sandstein's judgment, and the closer was within their rights to not undelete the page. However, given the fact this has turned into an extension of an AfD, I wonder if the best thing to do is to have someone draftify it and have it go through the full review process from the beginning. SportingFlyer talk 05:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Salt and Overturn Delete. The subject is a textbook case of someone notable as an author or creative which is why we have relevant guidelines explained in WP:AUTHOR rather than just always applying broad general notability guidelines. Jersey92 explained this well above, even if Jersey92 should not have bolded paragraphs. Most of this discussion should have happened during the AfD, but if nobody that edited the article received notification by the AfD nom it seems reasonable that it is happening here. Everyone stop the mudslinging and assume good faith. Rusf10 was wrong to falsely accuse Thetechgirl of dishonesty, but I’d bet he messed up because he read 2017 as 2018, and not because of a WP:COI. He also messed up big time on WP:BEFORE and WP:DP which could have been brought up in the AfD if relevant editors were notified. The salt should obviously be removed as there is only one recent delete which the closing Admin stated the subject was borderline notable already and later agreed to a recreate after the subject's notability increased. The article should be kept as it is a textbook case of a notable author. At this point in the discussion with the sources listed above this should be obvious and it isn't borderline either. If you think the article is promotional go fix it. There are more than enough sources from which to do so. -- Clean-up-wiki-guy ( talk) 22:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment I checked WP:BASIC and it clearly states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" and the section with WP:AUTHOR begins "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." The number of "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" in this case is very high so he meets WP:BASIC in addition to WP:AUTHOR. I wanted to remove myself from this conversation but I came across another WP:BASIC discussion today that reminded me to recheck the wording. I am sorry for overbolding before. Jersey92 ( talk) 02:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Rome Process and Rome Criteria ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The Rome Process and Rome Criteria page that I was working on for many hours was deleted from my sandbox without any notice. It was content about a well-established internationally known process to develop diagnostic criteria (in the medical field) that's been around a long time but there's no information about it on Wikipedia. I provided multiple credible references. I thought that was what Wikipedia was all about--telling the history of processes etc, especially those that don't have a story that's told yet. The Rome Process/criteria helps diagnose people with functional gastrointestinal disorders, thus people with this condition would be very much interested in this information. I spent a long time writing this and would like to know: 1.) the reasons why it was deleted 2.) if there is anything that can be changed so that it would be accepted 3.) if I can at least have the content back that I worked on for many hours. Also I'm curious to know which of these expert Wikipedia administrators can answer these questions: 1.) Can you tell me why other medical conditions are accepted as appropriate content here and not this condition (as I have seen MANY other medical conditions included on Wikipedia)? 2.)Are functional GI disorders not considered as important as other conditions? 3.) Could you justify that it's not important to someone who actually suffers from functional GI disorders? 4.) Can you tell me why it's ok for other foundations and organizations to be represented on Wikipedia but not this one? I've seen MANY (Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, American Heart Association just to name 2 of many) Please reconsider your deletion and reinstate these pages and/or please consider sending me back the material I worked on. Medwriter77 ( talk) 04:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC) 4:00 AM PST 10/31/2006 by Stephen Galloway , AP reply

• Speedy close, improper nom, as no page by this name has been deleted, or indeed has ever existed. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 07:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Rome Foundation ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The Rome Foundation page that I was working on for many hours was deleted from my sandbox without any notice. It was content about a well-established internationally known foundation (in the medical world) that's been around a long time but there's no information about it on Wikipedia. I provided multiple credible references. I thought that was what Wikipedia was all about--telling the history of organizations etc, especially those that don't have a story that's told yet. The Rome Foundation helps diagnose people with functional gastrointestinal disorders, thus people with this condition would be very much interested in this information. I spent a long time writing this and would like to know: 1.) the reasons why it was deleted 2.) if there is anything that can be changed so that it would be accepted 3.) if I can at least have the content back that I worked on for many hours. Also I'm curious to know which of these expert Wikipedia administrators can answer these questions: 1.) Can you tell me why other medical conditions are accepted as appropriate content here and not this condition (as I have seen MANY other medical conditions included on Wikipedia)? 2.)Are functional GI disorders not considered as important as other conditions? 3.) Could you justify that it's not important to someone who actually suffers from functional GI disorders? 4.) Can you tell me why it's ok for other foundations and organizations to be represented on Wikipedia but not this one? I've seen MANY (Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, American Heart Association just to name 2 of many) Please reconsider your deletion and reinstate these pages and/or please consider sending me back the material I worked on. Medwriter77 ( talk) 04:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse and speedy close. This was deleted, back in 2013, as a copyright infringement. We are surely not going to overturn that deletion now. That is no bar to creating a proper, neutral non-infringing article now. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 07:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply