User talk:Rathfelder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust[edit]

Am I allowed to take an axe to the dreadful article Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust? Why has nobody marked any issues with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talkcontribs)

You have the same right that I do or any other editor does. Anything that turns mediocrity into excellence is praised. Be prepared for others to chip in with edits. Some may agree with you, others disagree. The concept is WP:BRD. Absorb that and then go to it with a will.
I suggest you take one aspect at a time, and work steadily through it, leaving an edit summary for each change. It would also do no harm to notify other users, broadly, of your plan by leaving a message on the article talk page that you intend to get started and what you hope to achieve. Don't forget to sign the message there if you leave one. Leave it for a day or two (time never matters on Wikipedia, nothing is urgent) note what people are saying, if anything, and then improve the article to the best of your ability. Fiddle Faddle 16:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Good grief, that is a mess, isn't it. I've put a few tags for issues at the head, but those tags don't even start to cover it. Where does one even start? Fiddle Faddle 17:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
This is a truly dreadful article. I've had a dabble, introducing a couple of fully cited references (you might want to use them as examples of what might be done) and removing the appalling repetitions in headings. I think you might narrow the infobox. It is rather too prominent and acts as a feature rather than a brief informative panel. I remind you of my suggestion about the creation of an NHS template. It would be worthy of the extra small effort, I think. In general we prefer off the peg infoboxes rather than tailor made ones, and it would save a lot of future effort. Fiddle Faddle 11:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I have made draconian changes to the article. There is now the basis of a half decent article there. I've parked a load of links on the article's talk page for you and other editors to consider. There's loads more work to do on that article if you fancy it. My edits were just an academic exercise, and, in part, to show you how rough one can be when editing a mess, and what one can do with links that have been provided and may or may not be useful. Now one can see the wood from the trees. Fiddle Faddle 15:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Much improved. I can't see that, for example, a list of murders committed by patients at a Trust, or a list of wards and departments, is, in itself, very illuminating. The NHS makes lots of news, generates immense amounts of data. I'm trying to use Wikipedia to produce something which could help people to understand and see what is significant. Rathfelder (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It's still by no means finished. What I wanted to do was to show you "precisely" how bold one can be when tackling a disaster of an article. I made judgments on whether sections were required at all. If not I deleted them. I looked at sections that contained information that might be useful and preserved them in plain sight in the talk page in case other editors wish to make use of them. I rewrote sections that were useless as they stood, and converted awful bare urls into fully cited references. But, most important of all, I put edit summaries that explained what I was doing, and also left an explanation on the talk page.
One major point is that I am only interested in improving the article, not in worrying particularly about previous editors and their sensibilities. I edited carefully and not rudely, but I edited very heavily and very suddenly. This is part of Bold, revert, discuss. I am prepared to stand by my edits on the article's talk page and to argue my corner describing why I made them and relating that to policy or WP:MOS or WP:V or other relevant matters of policy. These are things we never expect a new editor to know from the start, but we hope they will learn about quickly.
If consensus determines that one or more of my edits be reverted I will lose no sleep over that. That is what consensus is all about. I do my best. Others may take a different view. That approach should inform anything we do here. We do our personal best each time. We recognise that others may hold different views. We do not fight to the death, but we argue with quiet precision for what we believe to be correct. If we must yield then we yield with good grace. Fiddle Faddle 16:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I like the changes[edit]

Thank you for listening to me and for absorbing and starting to use such wisdom as I have to impart. There is, of course, absolutely no reason why you should agree with me, but I thank you for listening to me.

If you are willing to listen a little more, some time ago I drafted an essay which some people have been kind enough to tell me is useful. It may be helpful to you, too. Fiddle Faddle 12:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It is helpful. and as you may have noticed I am not easily put off.Rathfelder (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm pleased that you are not easily put off. My objective has been to help you do better and better as time passes. I love your enthusiasm and energy and capacity for learning. You have absorbed a great deal in the past few hours and are starting to deploy your new knowledge. No-one expects you to learn and use everything at once. That would be ridiculous. You are choosing the elements to deploy, seeing how they work, and considering which to embrace and which to discard. That is as it should be.
Remember one vital rule here: The only thing on Wikipedia to take personally is praise. Fiddle Faddle 12:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the new stubs are definitely getting better: there's a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia, but it's an interesting journey. I do think we need a standardised infobox, though we probably need an infobox geek to assemble it once it's agreed what it should contain. (For a start I'd suggest date of creation and date of dissolution, date of acquisition of Foundation status, any previous names, predecessor and successor bodies, location of HQ, area(s) of operation, link to trust website, link to Monitor, link to CQC, ... there many be useful ideas in {{infobox UK school}} and also {{Infobox hospital}}).
I really think it is useful for the article to give geographical context by specifying "England" - it's an international encyclopedia, and we can't assume that everyone recognises either "NHS" or our placenames. I add "United States" to a lot of articles written by Americans who assume that the world = the USA. There's a guideline, or essay, or something somewhere which suggests that the reader shouldn't need to click on a link in the lead sentence in order to understand broadly what the article is about: it should identify its topic to the average reader (from anywhere in the world) who may have found it with the "Random article" button.
Also, please check carefully that you're making links to the right articles - for example in your version of Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust there were links to disambiguation pages at Sunderland, Benton and St Nicholas Hospital and a red link at "Houghton Le Spring" (I've now made a redirect from that variation, to Houghton-le-Spring: if you see a red link to a topic which is unlikely not to be in the encyclopedia it's worth rummaging around in case there's a spelling variation, especially with a compound name like that one).
Do you know about the brilliant "Gadget" of "Navigation popups"? With it you can hover the mouse over a link to see the opening lines of the target page - very useful for checking links. If you haven't got it, go to Preferences, Gadgets, look under "Browsing", and tick the box. I don't know why it isn't installed by default for all editors, it's so useful.
I was going to go through all the new trusts adding England to the text and the "Health in (county)" categories and doing other odd cleanups, but I've spent too much time on it all already and need to get on with some real life. Good luck with it all. PamD

Some of the titles of articles about NHS Trusts need to be changed. I am trying to bring some consistency in. Where a trust runs more than one hospital I have made an article for the trust, linking to all the hospitals it runs. But there are some trusts which only run hospital, and there is a decent existing article about that. But anything that uses the name of the Trust fails to link to it. The Trust is the legal entity, and we are due a wave of mergers and take-overs, so there will be a lot of change. How is it possible to change the names of articles?Rathfelder (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject NHS[edit]

I've just spotted the note you left at User:Jpmaytum. Could I suggest that you move it to User talk:Jpmaytum, both because that's the right place for messages, and because the editor might have email alerts set up to notify them when there's a message on their talk page. I see they were editing relatively recently, September.

I don't know whether you found your way to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Health Service, where there's a list of participants? I've left a note on the project talk page, in the hopes that anyone interested will have that on their watchlist. I was surprised that there didn't seem to be an NHS wikiproject out there: I can't have looked in the right places to find it. PamD 23:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

If we assume that the project is still active, then it would be helpful to add its banner {{WPNationalHealthService}} to the talk page of each Trust article - and also the banner for the relevant geographical area project, as that's likely to flag it up for people interested in the local area, who may well be willing and able to contribute to the trust articles (eg {{WikiProject Yorkshire}}). But I can't see an easy way to track down all the relevant templates, as there's not much standardisation of WikiProject names! (It would also mean that any attempted deletions would be brought to the attention of members of the relevant project who would be likely to leap to the defence of their local Trust's article). PamD 23:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Though on looking at it, the NHS project banner seems to need some attention from the template geeks, as it defaults to "high" importance and also displays an error message. Hmm. Nothing is ever simple around here. PamD 23:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Will do. I know Mr Maytum in real life. My impression is that the project has died. If it was still alive most of the stuff I have been doing would have been done.Rathfelder (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

If you need a friendly template geek, ask user Technical 13. I have deliberately not linked to him since I don't want to put him to any trouble unless you would like some help. Nice guy and understands what he is doing. Fiddle Faddle 00:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm very keen to see the coverage of the NHS improved on WP and agree that the Wikipedia:WikiProject National Health Service has fallen behind the speed of change in the NHS. I've volunteered to be part of the project, but I'm guessing there aren't many of us about.

It is really important we capture the size, scale and reach of the NHS as this is significant beyond the shores of the United Kingdom ( - for example it is frequently referenced in the debate around Obamacare in the United States.

Perhaps we can move some of this debate to the WikiProject page for the NHS and get improving the material within Wikipedia.

14:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpmaytum (talkcontribs)

Making the NHS edits work[edit]

Hi Martin, good to catch you here on Wikipedia.

As you'll have found out there is a strict and strange etiquette here on WP and - because of its importance to the whole ethos of WP - you'll find many people will uphold this etiquette over and above just general information. You can't get away with Mostly Harmless here, I'm afraid. To be honest, I'm still learning and still getting things wrong.

More than happy to do what I can to help with the NHS Articles. If you look at how thin the NHS England article is, given its importance within the system, then you'll get a sense of the mountain to climb.

But, once you get the system going, it's easy to copy and paste the references etc and use the same formula for many articles. Have a look at what I've done with your Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust article and you'll see what looks nearer what the editors are looking for.

I usually put the intro paragraph above the infobox, for clarity (I've yet to be told this is wrong) - and you'll see how I've used references and the shortcut for repeated use of the same reference. The protocol is that each statement of fact should be appropriately referenced within the text - and ideally referenced to somewhere precise enough for someone to check up (ie you can't just point to the annual report when the fact is on page 217). Normally it's not enough just to reference an organisation's website - you should be looking for third party references - usually from notable news sites (eg BBC Online, The Guardian etc). It's well worth reading Wikipedia notability Guidelines to help you understand where editors will come in and challenge what you're doing.

I hope all this is helpful and isn't telling you what you know already. And, working for the NHS, it still surprises me how few Trusts and organisations worry about their Wikipedia page.


Jpmaytum (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Very nice to meet you here! I think I'm learning. I no longer get threats to delete my articles!
Someone needs to get NHS Comms people interested. I wonder how we could do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talkcontribs)
It would be worth reading WP:COI and/or Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide: if an NHS Communications or PR person started to edit the article about their employer, this would be strongly disapproved of. If they find errors of fact, or have other suggestions, they should say so on the talk page (with sources) and leave it to independent editors to correct the article. PamD 13:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"Merely being employed by an institution is not a conflict of interest."Rathfelder (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC) I don't see why a public not for profit institution like an NHS trust should not update basic information like the name of its chief exec or annual turnover. Rathfelder (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

New Foundation Trust template[edit]

Hallo, have you noticed {{Infobox NHS Foundation Trust}}? It has been created, and nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_4#Template:Infobox_NHS_Foundation_Trust (all votes so far being "Keep"). I think it looks useful - a standardised template is better than a mass of handcrafted ones, and will help improve the articles. I wonder whether it ought to be made more general, to include all NHS trusts? Do join in the discussion on the template's talk page at Template talk:Infobox NHS Foundation Trust. PamD 17:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation."Rathfelder (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30[edit]

Learn more about page curation.

interesting work[edit]

Hi thanks for doing some interesting work on Julie Bailey etc. I dont know if I can tempt you into doing a few other articles in the health field such as Will Powell, Care Quality Commission member Kay Sheldon, and prominent NHS whistleblowers such as Gary Walker, Kim Holt, and David Drew. I would help myself where possible.--Penbat (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I might do Will Powell, but I don't want to be seen to do Gary or David as I am too closely involved. But if you would like to start the articles off I am happy to contribute.Rathfelder (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks im trying to keep a low profile on Wiki these days and not do very much. However it wouldnt take much to get articles done for the above mentioned to a similar length to Julie Bailey. I'll try and meet you half way on average, either you kick something off (maybe in a sandbox) & i'll embellish it or vice versa in each case.--Penbat (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hospitals vs NHS Trusts[edit]


I happened to see a couple of moves of yours come up on my watch list (specifically James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust for example). I wondered what the rationale was for the move of the hospital to the Trust? I'm interested more than anything else - particularly if it was discussed somewhere? In the case of the JPH, for example, I have some concerns that we're assuming that the Trust *is* the hospital. To my mind this is not necessarily the case - in this case you may not be aware that the Trust runs both the JPH and Lowestoft Hospital. As the articles stand we still have an article on Lowestoft Hospital and the article on the Trust now seems to try to talk about both the Trust and the JPH - to my mind leading to some confusions.

Perhaps you can shed some light on the rationale? I'm not suggesting at all that we might not want an article on the Trust or that every hospital is in a similar position. My gut feeling, however, is that it might be more sensible to have articles on the physical hospital - as much as anything it's much more likely that someone will search for Ipswich Hospital than they will for Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust.

But anyway, I'm sure there's a clear rationale for this stuff. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I have been wondering what to do about this for some time. The NHS is in a state of flux and we can expect even more reorganising over the next few years. Wikipedia has found it hard to keep up anyway. Foundation Trusts seem likely to survive, and probably take over other services and buildings. Quite a few hospital trusts now run all sorts of services away from their main site. All official reports and evaluations, and most journalism, relates to trusts, not hospitals. So, for example mortality figures, financial information etc is only available at Trust level. Wikipedia's treatment of hospitals is variable, but often concentrates on the actual building more than the services provided. Some Trusts run several hospitals, and so it makes sense to have an article about the trust and another about each hospital. For those like James Paget where there is very clearly a main site it seems more sensible to combine the Trust entry with that of the main hospital. It is difficult see how to use the Wikipedia:Official names policy - because different people will use different names for what is fundamentally the same organisation. We clearly need an article about the Trust. We also need an article about the hospital. The question is, do they need to be two separate articles?
I was planning to go back to the JPH article and tidy it up. But if you think there should be two articles perhaps I should try and do that instead. I'd be grateful for your opinion. Rathfelder (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I think I'd argue that the physical hospital is more likely to outlive the Trust - especially in these bold days of Trusts being replaced or allows to be bankrupt and so on. For that reason more than any other I'd argue articles on hospitals are a better choice as the base article - they may change their names, but the physical building remains (or is closed in which case the article is a historical one). It's a bit like railway stations for example - some closed, some renamed, lots changed operator, but the physical building is a key reference point that's difficult to move. It's also a little like schools for many of the same reasons.
But then I do tend to think spatially. But that'd be my preference - stick with whatever the hospital is (commonly?) called (I would argue in just about every case). Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure the physical building is likely to survive longer than the organisational form. But the information which needs to be in the article is about the organisation, not the building. Rathfelder (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that it needs be one or the other. It could be both. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Information about the performance, management, finance and activity of individual hospitals is not available. Information is only published in respect of Trusts.Rathfelder (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure there's all sorts of interesting information about individual hospitals available however. History, for example, or the number of wards or beds or perhaps things such as infection outbreaks, specialist services and so on. The JPH/Lowestoft example highlights this well - clearly there is lots of information available about Lowestoft hospital, very much the smaller facility. Just because a bunch of statistics are currently published at another level doesn't mean we shouldn't have articles about hospitals as well.
Can I ask if any consensus about this has been reached at either of the relevant wiki projects?
Btw, you might find it handy to indent response on talk pages. I think that's in the talk page guidance, I can't remember. It really helps,with readability. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Sadly the NHS wiki project seems to have died.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that we shouldn't have articles about hospitals. The problem comes when the Trust and the Hospital are pretty much one thing. The Lowestoft article is actually clearer when it relates to the article about the JPH Trust. Quite a lot of the information on the JPH article is not about the hospital. It's about the Trust. Rathfelder (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Appletree Medical Group[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Appletree Medical Group, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Appletree Medical Group[edit]

Hi there, I saw your argument not to delete on this talk page. However, the merits of an organization has nothing to do with its notability per WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Arguing that it's a good idea is a bad argument that it's famous. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, even if it's not advertising, neither is it notable - that is, famous for a reason. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I shall userfy your page for you. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It is here: User:Rathfelder/Appletree Medical Group. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I have discovered the source of the original story, and found a number of objective sources which I think collectively establish its notability. I would be grateful if it can now be restored. I don't think much of your approach. Deleting an article which is not finished without giving its author any opportunity to dispute your premature conclusion is not what I expect. Rathfelder (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Appletree_Medical_Group, any other sysop can do so. I'd rather not get more involved. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paul Baumann[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Rathfelder/Appletree Medical Group (February 22)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Appletree Medical Group (March 24)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

Wiki Project NHS[edit]

Martin -

Can I encourage you to sign up to to the WikiProject National Health Service (which is very quiet at the moment) - as a way of trying to be a bit strategic about all the NHS articles.

What do you think?

Jpmaytum (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Done it, but I think there is just thee and meRathfelder (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


Hi - I note that you have sought to include financial results for GSTS Pathology into the article on Serco. I am not sure the point you are trying to make by including these numbers (rather than the results of any other subsidiary) and why they meet the notability criteria for inclusion. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. GSTS Pathology is a joint venture which seems to be majority owned by NHS trusts. the question of whether these pathology ventures are financially viable is much debated, and whether such things are being used as loss leaders among those campaigning about privatisation of the NHS. Perhaps it would be clearer if I moved this bit into a separate article. Rathfelder (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Good idea. The figures lack context at the moment. It sounds as wikipedia would benefit from an article on pathology ventures if there isn't one already. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Independent Living Fund[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Independent Living Fund, and it appears to include material copied directly from

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Independent Living Fund[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Independent Living Fund requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

restored to User:Rathfelder/ILP Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Appletree Medical Group (June 26)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
Fiddle Faddle 19:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse logo
Hello! Rathfelder, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

I have left a critique of the references on the draft article. The overall quality is poor, I fear. Fiddle Faddle 22:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Viapath for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Viapath is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viapath until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Viapath is probably not sufficiently notable to deserve a wikipedia page WP:NCORP Wayne Jayes 17:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)