Talk:New Chapter

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 May 2022. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New Chapter article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Vermont Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Vermont portal This article is supported by WikiProject Vermont.

Companies Low‑importance

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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Dietary Supplements Low‑importance

	New Chapter is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is a major maker of vitamins and supplements. The current sourcing is reliable. --Thriley (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that the AFD notice itself plainly states, In haec verba "Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed ". I would put this in the AFD discussion, but that has gone on long enough, and I don't want to burden the closer. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen, you didn't want to "burden" the closing admin by mentioning this, but had no problem insulting HighKing and then launching a personal attack against me?? MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't attack you. Nor did I insult HighKing. My comments are about the article and the protracted discussion. You are not the center of the encyclopedia. Regards, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did, Mr Latin-quoting Lawyer. "Queen of Snark" and "WP:Bullying or WP:Disruptive" for starters. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen, please drop the snarkiness, it is not helpful. Do you have any policy-based reasoning in response to HighKing's detailed explanation? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Back at you, Queen of Snark. Your presence was anticipated. Your history proceeds you. Regards, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

You called him snarky first, but whatever. Dream Focus 00:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, that's untrue. I was describing an editing style, but Thirteen's comment was a personal attack. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing issues

Hello Cielquiparle. It's great to see the improvements you have made to the article, thank you for your efforts.

As per the "better source needed" tags that you added, I do have concerns regarding the reliability of these sources. However I'd just like to clarify that I added the "failed verification" tag on the statement "based on research conducted" is because the claim is not actually supported in the reference (and the same reasoning also applied to the previous "large number of organic dietary supplements" text, before you improved the wording of it). All the best, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks for explaining and rewording. I think I was trying not to use the word "invent" (which the article doesn't say except in calling them "inventors"). Also there's the issue of who owns the IP (the individual who "invented" while they were employed by the company or the company itself), but the way you've worded it now, there is no ambiguity. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm glad to hear that the IP question has been dealt with now (an unintended benefit, I must admit!). Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]