User talk:DbMcB
Reply
[edit]Hi, thanks for message. I deleted the article because
- it did not provide adequate independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the organisation claims or interviewing its management. Most of the text was either unreferenced or referenced to sources that are not independent third-party sources. One journal source doesn't mention the institute in the abstract, which is all that I can see
- The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:
- significant coverage in
- independent,
- multiple,
- reliable,
- secondary sources.
- An individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability. On this basis, most of the sources cannot contribute towards establishing notability.
- it's all about what the organisation does. Although there is a link to funding, the text doesn't mention number of employees, membership or expenditure
- it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
- Examples of unsourced or self-sourced claims presented as fact include: that produces critical research oriented toward enhancing democracy, social justice and ecological sustainability... seeks to challenge existing corporate priorities... advocate for alternative globalization policies that are more sustainable, just and democratic... how to end corporate impunity and dismantle corporate power.. It is a lead facilitator... The program facilitates dialogue... strengthens civil society and political actors... a unique expertise... cutting-edge analyzes... to build a strong countervailing force that reverses privatization...—and so on, just corporate spam
- There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections. That's particularly the case when they are spamlinks to the organisations own publications
I looked back through the history after reading your message, but there appear to be no earlier versions that are significantly better than the latest version.
I note that your very first edit on Wikipedia is to ask me about this article, which makes me wonder why the sudden interest. If you have a conflict of interest regarding this article, you must declare it. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that the organisation is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles for the article to be created. If you work directly or indirectly for the organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. Regardless, if you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:DbMcB. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=DbMcB|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.
It may be that you have edited this article under another account. That is permitted, but the use of multiple accounts must be transparent.
Since you have never edited the article and have no other obvious experience at editing here, I don't see any reason to restore.