Talk:Jennifer Ann's Group/Archive 1

CSD

Userfy IAW WP:SPEEDY until unbiased notability is established.

Critieria:

• Blatant promotional page
• Previous assertion was topic of AfD (technically, this page should be AfD as well)

Reasons:

• Author previously created Jennifer Ann Crecente which was userfied and deleted. This page was created on the day that the previous page was nominated for deletion.
• Author is possibly circumventing previous deletion by creating a new page on the topic/group/person.
• Author may be biased ("Jennifer Ann's Group [1] was founded by Drew Crecente in 2006...").
• Page is basically a promotion for a web site (non-profit org). See: WP:NOT
• Claim of notability is based on subjective criteria, and anticipated legislative action (still pending, I gather).

Strongly suggest this page is userfied until further notability is established.

— David Spalding ^Talk/_Contribs 17:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to CSD

• Attacking a fellow editor based on assumptions about motive is against policy. (see WP:AGF and WP:NPA).
• Recognition by Texas Psychological Foundation is notable and not subjective.
• Media coverage in print and TV is notable and not subjective.
• Page contains history of organization as well as efforts undertaken by organization and is not a "blatant" promotional page. "Blatant" is defined by [dictionary.com] as:

1. brazenly obvious; flagrant 2. offensively noisy or loud; clamorous 3. tastelessly conspicuous

Drew30319 20:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note: a different user nominated this page for CsD, I only commented. Presumptions about your editing history aside, commenting on this page was NOT intended, nor should it be interpreted, as an attack on your person. Please continue contributing to WP to your heart's content. I'm sure that as more people flock to this page and add to it, it will benefit from objectivity and credibility. Best of luck to you with your organization. — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 22:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability, CoI

• WP:NOTABILITY: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself.". from what i can make out, this article scores 1 mention in a independent published work, the Moultrie Observer. the "was instrumental in having the TPA ..." is not explicitly substantiated by the source. i don't see the current version as being "blatant advertising", as specified in WP:CSD General criteria #11. my suggestion wld be adding a couple of {{fact}}s, and if adequate citations can't be found consider taking it to AfD. Doldrums 08:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• You are correct that there is not currently many articles and I am to blame for that. I have generally avoided the media and all but one media request for interviews. There is a TV news report about the group that has an interview with an advisory board member. Unfortunately the video clip isn't online. The news station has been contacted and a request made to put the video online.
  
  At some point I need to be willing to do more interviews but have found (unfortunately) that due to PTSD I have much more success with electronic communication than with phone or (worse) on-camera. We have been approached by producers of both The Dr. Phil Show as well as The Nancy Grace Show (or whatever it's called) and I have had to decline both.
  
  I realize all of that is beside the point - I'll take your advice and get a few more links on here within the next couple of weeks. Thank you for your impartial and non-inflammatory comments! Drew30319 00:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• there is no requirement that a source must be available online to be used in WP; books, journal articles, newspaper reports not available online are used. if u can supply enough information about the TV news report to make it identifiable, and if reports are available for public access (eg., in person), i think u can cite the TV news segment as a source. i wld also suggest either removing material that is not substantiated by a reliable source, possibly to the talk page, or tagging such statements with {{citation needed}} until they can be properly sourced. User:Drew30319, since u've said that u r associated with this organisation, u'll need to work with the guidelines in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to contribute to this page. Doldrums 08:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Just a suggestion.... If there are some people who are familiar with the group, but not members of the group, try to get them to edit the page here. Surely someone in Texas can help. Were there any news articles about the proposed law in Texas that make reference to your group's involvement? Using the citation templates here it's easy to create links to non-trivial, third party published articles. I think that's what you need to remove the dual clouds of notability and conflict of interest from this page. — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 20:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC comments

Somewhat of a newbie here -- where do I put comments related to the RfC? Wbroun 02:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

How about here? JChap2007 23:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Drew, I sympathize with your loss, but with all due respect you cannot be neutral about your murdered daughter or the organization you founded in her memory. It's certainly a worthy cause, but Wikipedia is here to report on things from a neutral point of view, not to promote things, even Good Things. JChap2007 23:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Still working on getting more articles, citations, etc. Found this link on a blog and don't know if blogs are considered "cite-worthy."

CovingtonInnovations.com

This is an AI Professor at the University of Georgia that contacted me and sent our group's educational cards to the counseling center at the University.

Thanks for helping to clean up the article. The NBC affiliate interview will be online shortly. Drew30319 19:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally blogs are not reliable, but there are exceptions. ("Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. " (emphasis added)) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Covered On CNN

This story is getting tons of coverage, especially down in Georgia, but it's all over the place[1]. I think the question of Notability is totally moot now. This is a big public story with a national profile. Deleting the article would be wrongheaded. Just my 2 cents. Wbroun 02:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a story about someone named Jennifer Ross being murdered. This is an article about a group founded in memory of Jennifer Ann Crecente. Also, this is not Articles for Deletion. JChap2007 02:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Eek! Doh! Wbroun 03:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

TV Coverage

The television interview is now available on YouTube (or will be once YouTube is finished processing). TV Interview that aired on 11.23.2006 Drew30319 00:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

Userfy IAW WP:SPEEDY until unbiased notability is established.

Critieria:

• Blatant promotional page
• Previous assertion was topic of AfD (technically, this page should be AfD as well)

Reasons:

• Author previously created Jennifer Ann Crecente which was userfied and deleted. This page was created on the day that the previous page was nominated for deletion.
• Author is possibly circumventing previous deletion by creating a new page on the topic/group/person.
• Author may be biased ("Jennifer Ann's Group [1] was founded by Drew Crecente in 2006...").
• Page is basically a promotion for a web site (non-profit org). See: WP:NOT
• Claim of notability is based on subjective criteria, and anticipated legislative action (still pending, I gather).

Strongly suggest this page is userfied until further notability is established.

— David Spalding ^Talk/_Contribs 17:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to CSD

• Attacking a fellow editor based on assumptions about motive is against policy. (see WP:AGF and WP:NPA).
• Recognition by Texas Psychological Foundation is notable and not subjective.
• Media coverage in print and TV is notable and not subjective.
• Page contains history of organization as well as efforts undertaken by organization and is not a "blatant" promotional page. "Blatant" is defined by [dictionary.com] as:

1. brazenly obvious; flagrant 2. offensively noisy or loud; clamorous 3. tastelessly conspicuous

Drew30319 20:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note: a different user nominated this page for CsD, I only commented. Presumptions about your editing history aside, commenting on this page was NOT intended, nor should it be interpreted, as an attack on your person. Please continue contributing to WP to your heart's content. I'm sure that as more people flock to this page and add to it, it will benefit from objectivity and credibility. Best of luck to you with your organization. — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 22:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability, CoI

• WP:NOTABILITY: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself.". from what i can make out, this article scores 1 mention in a independent published work, the Moultrie Observer. the "was instrumental in having the TPA ..." is not explicitly substantiated by the source. i don't see the current version as being "blatant advertising", as specified in WP:CSD General criteria #11. my suggestion wld be adding a couple of {{fact}}s, and if adequate citations can't be found consider taking it to AfD. Doldrums 08:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• You are correct that there is not currently many articles and I am to blame for that. I have generally avoided the media and all but one media request for interviews. There is a TV news report about the group that has an interview with an advisory board member. Unfortunately the video clip isn't online. The news station has been contacted and a request made to put the video online.
  
  At some point I need to be willing to do more interviews but have found (unfortunately) that due to PTSD I have much more success with electronic communication than with phone or (worse) on-camera. We have been approached by producers of both The Dr. Phil Show as well as The Nancy Grace Show (or whatever it's called) and I have had to decline both.
  
  I realize all of that is beside the point - I'll take your advice and get a few more links on here within the next couple of weeks. Thank you for your impartial and non-inflammatory comments! Drew30319 00:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• there is no requirement that a source must be available online to be used in WP; books, journal articles, newspaper reports not available online are used. if u can supply enough information about the TV news report to make it identifiable, and if reports are available for public access (eg., in person), i think u can cite the TV news segment as a source. i wld also suggest either removing material that is not substantiated by a reliable source, possibly to the talk page, or tagging such statements with {{citation needed}} until they can be properly sourced. User:Drew30319, since u've said that u r associated with this organisation, u'll need to work with the guidelines in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to contribute to this page. Doldrums 08:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Just a suggestion.... If there are some people who are familiar with the group, but not members of the group, try to get them to edit the page here. Surely someone in Texas can help. Were there any news articles about the proposed law in Texas that make reference to your group's involvement? Using the citation templates here it's easy to create links to non-trivial, third party published articles. I think that's what you need to remove the dual clouds of notability and conflict of interest from this page. — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 20:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC comments

Somewhat of a newbie here -- where do I put comments related to the RfC? Wbroun 02:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

How about here? JChap2007 23:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Drew, I sympathize with your loss, but with all due respect you cannot be neutral about your murdered daughter or the organization you founded in her memory. It's certainly a worthy cause, but Wikipedia is here to report on things from a neutral point of view, not to promote things, even Good Things. JChap2007 23:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Still working on getting more articles, citations, etc. Found this link on a blog and don't know if blogs are considered "cite-worthy."

CovingtonInnovations.com

This is an AI Professor at the University of Georgia that contacted me and sent our group's educational cards to the counseling center at the University.

Thanks for helping to clean up the article. The NBC affiliate interview will be online shortly. Drew30319 19:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally blogs are not reliable, but there are exceptions. ("Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. " (emphasis added)) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Covered On CNN

This story is getting tons of coverage, especially down in Georgia, but it's all over the place[2]. I think the question of Notability is totally moot now. This is a big public story with a national profile. Deleting the article would be wrongheaded. Just my 2 cents. Wbroun 02:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a story about someone named Jennifer Ross being murdered. This is an article about a group founded in memory of Jennifer Ann Crecente. Also, this is not Articles for Deletion. JChap2007 02:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Eek! Doh! Wbroun 03:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

TV Coverage

The television interview is now available on YouTube (or will be once YouTube is finished processing). TV Interview that aired on 11.23.2006 Drew30319 00:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)