Talk:Biosphere Expeditions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not meant to be a promotional piece about Biosphere Expeditions. It is meant as a starting point for people to edit and change as they see fit and add relevancy. There are many similar articles about similar organisations on Wikipedia (e.g. Earthwatch, Coral Cay Conservation, Global Vision International), so I felt that a piece about Biosphere Expeditions is justified. Happy editing!

That's not a valid argument for inclusion. But anyway, it's not been nominated for deletion on promotional grounds, but grounds of notability. The Kinslayer 16:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the articles about similar organisations then? (Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to understand how things work).

Once again, Not a valid argument for inclusion. The link explains why 'Article x is in so Article y should be in' is not an acceptable argument for inclusion. Other articles are not taken into consideration. New pages are created far quicker than people can look at them to assess them, and many lie there for weeks or months before someone actually notices them. The Kinslayer 16:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Understand. So how long do we get to establish notability and what would need to happen?

General notability guidelines can be found here, but as a general rule of thumb, multiple non-trivial independent third party media mentions are a good start. The Kinslayer 16:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. We have LOTS of those (see www.biosphere-expeditions.org/media) and I will add some now.

This paged was originally challenged over a year ago under lack of NPOV, however, it was altered and remained unchallenged for over a year, surely this creates a precedent. I would like to ask what has changed under the NPOV rules, specifically what classes this as an advertisement- Philswiftiwuk (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC) pcs

The flag for speedy deletion is marked as spam. The explanation for the spam marking includes 'It does nothing but promote some entity and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic'. I would humbly suggest it does do things other than promote some entity and therefore there must be reasonable doubt as to whether this flagging is accurate. Philswiftiwuk (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't tagged for speedy deletion, so please stop adding the {{hangon}} tag. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is marked for speedy deletion, 'This article or section is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. Mark blatant advertising for speedy deletion, using {{db-spam}}. (May 2008)' I will continue to add the tag until it is not marked for speedy deletion.

That is an instruction telling people to mark blatant advertising with that tag. This article does not have that tag on it, only the {{advertisement}} tag. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i see now, it is not clear. Apologies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philswiftiwuk (talk • contribs) 00:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)