Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:00, 29 May 2009

{{helpme}} An article I watch and have started trying to develop into a decent wiki article (Dale Rogers Training Center) has been flagged with the "general notability guideline" tag (even though it existed for over a year and was never tagged as such up until now). My question: what exactly would make it appropriate for me to remove this tag? Most tags have obvious fixes, but there is quite a lot of subjectivity to this one. After reading Misplaced Pages:Notability and Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies), I feel like there are enough articles on the subject/organization to qualify it as "notable," but I can also see some people arguing against it because there aren't many national/international articles.

The only references in the article at the moment that would contribute to meeting the general notability guideline are those to The Oklahoman. Unfortunately, there are no links to online copies of these articles so it is difficult for editors to judge whether or not they constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" – they could be very brief, or puff pieces, for example. So, if you have access to the articles, and are convinced that they meet the requirements, you could leave a note on the talkpage (Talk:Dale Rogers Training Center) and then remove the tag. Alternatively, you could find new sources which are available online and add those to the article. Hope this helps,  Skomorokh  19:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I think that you should remove the reference to "Dale Rogers Training Center" because that is a reference to a primary source. You should also remove any facts that cannot be proven from reliable sources - there are currently a lot of facts in the article which don't have references - for example, "Dale Rogers provides training or employment to over 1,000 teenagers and adults" - as a reader, how could I verify that for myself? Either source it, or remove it. Also, it does not currently conform to a neutral point of view. For example, "Dale wrote the inspirational bestseller Angel Unaware" - the word "inspirational" is an opinion, not a fact. It might *just about* be acceptable to describe it as a best-seller if there were sources stating this - but it would be preferable to say, "It has sold over xxx copies (with a ref). State the facts, and let the reader make up their own mind. "One of the things that distinguishes Dale Rogers Training Center" - sounds like original research to me.

Please take this feedback in the spirit intended - to improve the quality of Misplaced Pages. Remember that such tags are intended to help improve the article, they should not be considered a criticism. Please have a go at making it more encyclopaedic, and do ask for more help whenever you need it. You might want to ask for more input on WP:FEED, for example. Good luck with it; for more help, you can either;

• Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
• Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR
• Talk to us live, with this.

Best wishes,  Chzz  ►  19:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, great information. Skomorokh, good idea on making a note on the talk page. It'll allow me to explain the scope of the articles I'm referencing (a couple are very in depth and, IMO, worthy of "notibility").--EPresslerHenderson (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)