Doctorjanson

September 2009

Please stop. If you continue removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did with National Endowment for Alzheimer's Research, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Leuko (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with National Endowment for Alzheimer's Research. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Note

You suggested that the article in question should be improved rather than deleted. I agree- in fact, we all do, and most of us love saving articles from deletion. In order to improve it, we'll need to use independent sources that discuss the organization in enough depth to write the article- we can't write the article based on the group's own web page, but have to use the information that's been published about the organization in newspapers, magazines, scholarly journals, and that sort of thing. You can help by pointing to some sources that we can use for improving the article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. But I think our organization's credentials speak for themselves. Our web site is not as fancy as some others, since our budget goes to research rather than P.R. and overhead. There is a long list of brain research articles which were funded in whole or in part (in peer-reviewed journals) by NEAR, and we are cited in those articles. We have also been involved in advocacy on behalf of Alzheimer's patients and submitted testimony to Congress through the AAAS on gene therapy and genetic research. Many of the peer-reviewed journal sites (Science, Nature, etc.) are not public access, so searching on Google is not going to yield instant results. But when I was growing up, we actually had to go to the library, and resourcefulness was a part of academic inquiry. These days, everyone wants instant gratification and information at the click of a button. After some thought, I have decided to pull all of our content from your web site, since based on the discussion here, I am afraid that the custodians of the site are not capable of valid assessment of our non-web based content. I think this will end the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorjanson (talk • contribs) 00:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, welcome. Secondly, you can't just clear all information from an article on WP, I'm afraid. Thirdly,Wikipedia:Assume good faith - nobody is trying to offend you or your organisation. All editors act in the interest of the community and it's guidelines. Fourthy, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - try and approach all articles as if you are completely uninvolved even sympathetically with the subject. You have to look at think "Is this fulfilling WP:GNG and if not, how can I make it so?" - You say that you are involved with the organisation so I recommend you get your admin to upload to the site some of those articles, or sections of them, or news clippings, or ANYTHING. Whilst you may well have valid offline sources, there are next to no online sources other than requests for donations. There is no indication of your organisation's work online. I recommend that if the AfD nomination is successful you add the article to one of your userpages and then work to bring it to a well sourced article, both online and offline sources, and resubmit it. If you want some help writing it, I am willing to help. Hope this helps and that you change your mind about contributing. Metty (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you have access to the articles, a scan would be helpful. Remember that we don't need the ones that simply cite the organization nearly as much as we need the ones that write about the organization in depth, so we can independently verify the facts in the article. You're right that internet presence is not mandatory, but it's very odd that a notable organization wouldn't be mentioned in any of the many journals and magazines that do publish online, even if it's just an abstract rather than the full work. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Warning

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to National Endowment for Alzheimer's Research.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)