User talk:Webnaut

You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

The article Working With Men has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please add your sources to the draft article in your userspace, so that I can review them. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)8[reply]

I've now updated the pages. The formatting still needs work but the content is more fleshed out. Thanks Webnaut (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The draft article still cites no independent sources that discuss Working With Men itself. There is just the one BBC interviewer that mentions Mr. Lloyd, but not the charity. This necessarily means that all the information about the charity is from the charity itself, which doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines. Again, please read WP:V and WP:ORG. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Sources that are organizations working with the charity are not independent. What we need is independent news or web coverage -- again, please look at WP:V, and also WP:RS. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - OK, you have a couple of independent sources -- but they basically mention WWM in passing. None of them actually describes WWM, with the result being that 99% of the article -- the part that describes, in great detail, WWM's programs -- is based on WWM's own knowledge, and consequently reads like a PR release or WWM's own website. Are you willing to write an article where every line is sourceable to an independent source? NawlinWiki (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]