User talk:Rochellesanz/Centre for Applied Cross-cultural Research

Notability

Hello Unforgettableid,

I am touching base regarding the recent deletions of the entry I was trying to make of the Centre for Cross-cultural Research at Victoria University of Wellington. I am not quite certain I understand why the post was removed, and would like to take the opportunity you suggested to speak with you about it, and send in my draft for some additional feedback.

As this is an established research centre, and is part of a large university (Victoria University of Wellington), I was under the impression that I could post an article describing the centre and the centre's role. I was also under the impression that I would be establishing notability by describing the centre's involvement with community and government groups and by providing examples of research and books that this centre has been involved with as reliable supporting evidence. Other research centres currently exist on Wikipedia, including many from the same university.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Research_Centre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_University_Coastal_Ecology_Laboratory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Strategic_Studies_New_Zealand

I would like very much to send you a copy of my draft, and get some feedback on it. To do this, should I post the draft here, or send it to you directly?

Thank you, Rochellesanz (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Rochellesanz, I'll move a copy of the deleted article into your userspace (a place you can work on it without worrying about it being deleted quickly). Just a note--the article was actually deleted for two reasons; one was that it lacked credible claims of importance, and the other is that it seemed to be unduly promotional. The latter is due to the overly positive language used on the page and the focus on information about the Centre produced by itself. To really make a good Wikipedia page, what you need to focus on is what other reliable sources have said about the centre. As to whether or not the centre is notable (in the sense that Wikipedia means; see WP:N), it will ultimately depend on what those reliable sources say about the centre. Some research centres are notable, but the vast majority are not, and are usually better covered in a few sentences in the institution that hosts them. But, that can be dealt with later. I'd be willing to review the article prior to you attempting to move it back into main space. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ms. Sanz.

First, you must prove "notability". I used quotation marks on purpose. Just because something is notable in real life doesn't mean it's notable to Wikipedians. You can see a summary of our guidelines at WP:42. Before you do anything else, first please find us multiple articles which include a "significant" amount of information about your centre. Articles in major mainstream publications like Psychology Today, National Geographic, Scientific American, or similar. A very large New Zealand national newspaper might or might not also qualify. Definitions of "significant coverage" differ, but one lengthy paragraph or more should be enough.

Proving "notability" may turn out to be impossible. But without "notability", we cannot keep your article.

Once you think you have proved "notability", contact us before proceeding, and point us to the articles you've found. Even if you think you've provided sufficient proof, really, you might not have.

Next, you must write a neutral, unpromotional article about your centre. If you are affiliated with the centre in any way, this will be difficult or impossible to do.

Beware. Others have put in immense efforts to create an article about their own company or organization, only to have the article later deleted — days, months, or years later. If you fail to prove "notability", or if you write a promotional article, your efforts may go to waste.

Maybe it is time to give up now instead of investing time and effort into a project which might easily fail for either of two reasons.

If you have any reply, please write it here then put a {{talkback}} template on my talk page.

Cheers! —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Unforgettableid.

I have addressed the concerns noted about my Wikipedia article, and uploaded a new draft. I want to change the online format and put it up in the main space, at it is currently up as a draft version. However, I do not want to go through the process of speedy deletion all over again, so am unsure whether I should go ahead and put it up, or wait for confirmation that the page is acceptable at this stage. I would appreciate some feedback/advice on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rochellesanz (talk • contribs) 22:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ms. Sanz. I just took another look at WP:42. The paragraph beginning "We need sources generally" requests mainstream sources. The paragraph beginning "We need references that discuss" says that you must have several such sources, and that they must discuss the Centre – directly, in detail. I see that your article has lots of sources. Could you please tell me which two or three of those discuss the Centre directly and in detail? One lengthy paragraph, or 60 seconds of audio, about the Centre itself (per source) would definitely suffice. But, for example, your link to "Money leads to autonomy but it does not add to well-being or happiness" doesn't count at all, since it doesn't discuss the Centre directly in detail. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! That helps - I'll address this next — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rochellesanz (talk • contribs) 00:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)