Talk:Daphne Jackson Trust

Rationale against speedy deletion, preserved for historical reasons

Contested deletion This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --DJMFT (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC) comments noted, will make changes - but the Daphne Jackson Trust a valuable, reputable organisation which I believe should be on Wikipedia. Contested deletion This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --DJMFT (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC) you will see that Daphne Jackson Trust is mentioned several times elsewhere on Wikipedia - in many cases with a link that did not work. I have included references from the Guardian and The Times Higher Education, The Institute of Physics website. I have also included links from people involved in the Trust, such as Sir Christopher Snowden - lots of references from different organisations and people! This is a charity - it is not promoting a company or an individual. I believe it to have been written in a neutral tone. I have changed the wording slightly - it was not the same as the website but it is difficult to make it too different as it is the same organisation. If you still dont believe these changes sufficient, I would like some more guidance as this is my first entry. I had read all the info and thought that I had followed it. Contested deletion This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --131.227.27.137 (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC) The Daphne Jackson Trust is well-known charity that helps researchers return to science after a career break. As one of the only organisations of its kind in the UK (and probably in the world) it should clearly have its own Wikipedia entrance. The content is original and does not infringe any copyrights (similar content can of course be found on the Trust's own website). The content gives a factual description of the Trust and does not in any way promote the workings on the Trust in an biased way. Thus there is no basis for the speedy deletion.

Citations etc

I'm struggling to incorporate http://www.theukrc.org/women/success-stories/janet-harwood into the article. It has valuable information, but there is no text to associate it with as a citation. i feel it deserves text to cite rather than being a random external link. I've removed it from the article for the time being. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've migrated almost all of the barelink references into full citations. I looked at the last couple and they simply appear to be directory entries on other folks' web sites. I can't really see how one might incorporate them as citations, nor as external links. I've left them there for others to think about. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Please use care when entering a citation, that the citation actually cites what it appears to cite. For example, a citation that an entity is a sponsor of the trust must show both that the organisation sponsors the trust, not merely that the organisation exists and the trust exists. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)