This article was created via the article wizard and reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow unregistered users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
NPOV :Alabama Cooperative Extension System, written almost entirely by a news and public affairs employee at ACES, so needs some neutral eyes to give it a going-over to check for both neutrality, and layout/content inclusion, etc.
They're welcome, but please observe all of our policies, specifically those concerning maintenance templates, addition of unsourced material, original research, edit summaries and spamming. If you have any questions, please ask here. Recent additions by User:188.8.131.52 are being rolled back because the policies do not appear to be observed. -- Trevj (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
This article has unfortunately been the subject of what appear to be promotional and POV edits. This edit states Removed:Notability - Company notable on several fronts, many not disclosed here. Citations - Needed citations listed, if more are required, advise. Advertisement - Does not read as such. Subjective Manner - More than subjective, due to earlier edit.
There is no consensus on notability, as evidenced in the 2012 AfD. The addition of primary source references does not contribute towards demonstrating notability.
Independent reliable sources are desirable, per the policies linked to in the user welcome message. Editors unsure of how to interpret such policies can request help (as advised) and/or enquire at places like the Teahouse.
Anyone with a potential conflict of interest is advised to declare such. It has been previously noted (by different editors) that the article reads somewhat like a promotional/advertising piece. There are a number of corporate articles classified GA, which should serve as examples of non-promotional articles which present genuinely encyclopedic information.
Perhaps a further independent review of the article would be able to provide comment regarding subjective/objective content.