Talk:Nelsons (homeopathy)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. | |
| Start | This page has been rated as start-Class on the quality assessment scale | |
| ??? | This page has not yet received a rating on the importance assessment scale. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Homeopathy WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Homeopathy. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
 |
The creator of this article, or someone who has substantially contributed to it, may have a conflict of interest regarding its subject matter. |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Contents |
[edit] Speedy deletion
"It does nothing but promote some entity and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion."
Nelsons has been in business for over 140 years and produces internationaly recognised brands. I think it therefore clearly constitutes as notable and it is reasonble for there to be an article about the company. it was already listed in the dis-ambiguation page for 'Nelsons' but there was no linked content just a headline.
As per the SDC cluase quoted above, simply having a company as its subject does not qualify an article for speedy deletion, it has to do 'nothing except advertise'. As stated below I tried to remove any copy that is partisan or could be considered advertising and simply list facts about the company and what it does. Indeed most of the copy is historical in nature and the product section was kept very plain and sparse due to the inherent issues with making this npov and not advertising.
While I have declared below that I work for the company, to clarrify I work in the IT dept and edit wiki pages as a hobby. I've put this page up as it seemed a reasonable thing to do, not as part of any advertising campaign.
Before making any further moves for speedy deletion or other sanctions, could you please discuss the issues with the page on here, or simply edit out copy that you feel to be advertising rather than factual. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
(following comments moved from the controversy section as more appropriate here)--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not concerned about any controversy, I'm concerned that there are no sources in the article besides the company's homepage. Can you find some articles in newspapers or magazines on the company? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. You are right to say there are no sources yet, and that is something that could clearly be improved upon. However, I don't think the immediate absence of sources at article creation is sufficient for speedy deletion. Many articles are created with minimal sources that are then improved over time, I've personally undertaken to improve other articles I've found in the that state.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- As the reviewing administrator, I declined the speedy, for it's fixable. One thing that might help is not to make separate headings for each product. And add some product reviews. Something about market share would also help. Please check WP:BFAQ for more advice. DGG (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Much appreciated, I'll try to put some refs in over the next few weeks.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- As the reviewing administrator, I declined the speedy, for it's fixable. One thing that might help is not to make separate headings for each product. And add some product reviews. Something about market share would also help. Please check WP:BFAQ for more advice. DGG (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Declaration of Interest
I've created this page as I believe the Nelsons company is notable and should have a page of its own. However, I work for Nelsons myself and while I have tried to ensure that what I have posted is generally Npov, obviously this should be peer reviewed to ensure this is achieved.
At this time I've tried to just list the factual history of the company and a list of its major products with minimal copy so as not to appear to be 'advertising', which is not the intent.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Homeopathy Controversy
Please can we avoid putting this page into the ongoing controversy about Homeopathy. The intention in creating the page is to document the history of the Nelsons company, which has been a significant company in this field for over 140 years, and notable facts about its ongoing business. I've tried to avoid putting any significant healthcare claims in the initial copy, if you feel I've not achieved this, please post here so it can be debated.
I genuinely want to create an Npov article dealing with the company and not make this into a controvercial topic.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sourcing, copyedit
The original article was copied and pasted from various pages of the company's Website, e.g. The Nelsons story [1] and Our Products [2]. Readers interested in such promotional detail may find it by following the external link. Fenwayguy (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- the company website was used as source, but if you compare the two it was clearly re-written specifically to remove overt promotional bias. Rather than just deleting the whole thing out of hand, why not try to improve the article. The material there was clearly factual in basis detailing the company history, it was also reviewed by a admin who didn't think it overly promotional. I'm reverting the deletion as that is clearly over the top. Please discuss here before taking this sort of action again.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Further to this, I've added a few refs to the copy to help support what is being said and to meet wiki guidlines. I've specifically avoided using the company websites for refs, although for some things (e.g. what international offices there are), this makes it pretty much impossible to get a ref. But I'll let someone else add those if appropriate. As stated before, the aim has been to write this as npov, if it fails to do this please improve the copy or else discuss here what could be changed. There is no need to delete the entire article for minor copy issues (as was stated in the speedy deletion comments above). I'll try and add more refs over the coming days in line with the admin suggestions above--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I've now re-written most of the copy on the page so it is much more clearly different from the original source material on the company website and therefore would not be in breach of copyright and should meet wiki guidelines. I will continue to add more and better refs as I find them online so as to ensure the article follows wiki rules. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Page Move
Why the page move? While Nelsons history is heavy on homeopathy, thier current products are a range of alternative health products. In fact homeopathy is a minority product, with the majority being related to the Bach/Rescue Remedy product lines. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
