Talk:Cambridge University Technology and Enterprise Club

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Copyvios / advert

I have removed all copyright violations that I could immediately find. Sorry, you can't copy material from other web pages into Wikipedia.

I have also marked the article as reading like an advert. I'm tempted to list it for possible deletion, but I thought I would give it a chance to be cleaned up first. But if it's to survive a deletion debate, the article has to be written in a neutral tone and preferably by neutral people. It also has to make clear why the organisation is notable including citing third-party reliable sources.

Think of it as writing an academic article, not self-promotion.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Arlecuona left the following message on my talk page. I've taken the liberty of moving the discussion here to make it easier for other people to join in. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Stephen, I am editing together with a group of friends from Cambridge, the article regarding the Cambridge University Technology and Enterprise Club (CUTEC). However, it seens to be written "as an advert". We have change it since last reviewed and still we have that tag associate to it. Please let me know which parts of it exactly you think that are an advert, because we are trying to be as neutral as possible, and all the facts in it are real and verificable.

Best regards,

Alfonso RL

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlecuona (talk • contribs)

And here is my reply. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, the whole of the article reads like an advert to me. It's very upbeat in tone, emphasising the great benefits of the club. Which may be true, but aren't really suitable for an encyclopaedia article. Actually, it doesn't exactly read like an advert, but it reads exactly like it was written for the website of the club.

I think the problem is that you're too close to the subject. WP:COI describes how you should almost never write about an organisation with which you're personally involved, because it's too hard to view it neutrally. You should wait until someone outside the organisation decides your organisation is important enough to write about.

Anyway, I think the best thing as we disagree is to seek other opinions on the subject. I'll put a message at Talk:University of Cambridge inviting people to join in this discussion.

Yours,

Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that it sounds very like a brochure that CUTEC might use to attract sponsorship. More specifically, almost the entirety of the history section was irrelevant (historic scientific advances in Cambridge, rather than the history of the society), and I've been bold and removed it. Bluap (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)