Talk:Not just for profit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Not just for profit article.
Article policies

Contents


[edit] Tagging this article for speedy deletion

Hello ... I encountered this newly created article while performing New Page Patrol activities.

In my opinion it lacks sufficient Attribution to satisfy the Notability criteria for one of the subject areas, e.g. WP:BIO, WP:BAND, WP:INC, WP:WEB, etc.

The point is that I plan to tag this article with either a speedy delete or a {{prod}} that explains my concern ... I have created this initial entry on the article's Discussion page in the hope that Administrators and other editors, including the original author (Jim Lawn (talk · contribs)), will also comment on their actions here.

Other experienced editors: Please see the protocol defined in What to do if a speedy delete tag is removed and try to keep the speedy delete process from occurring Too Quickly, like when a WikiNewbie creates a "work in progress" Stub instead of using their own sandbox first. The important thing to remember about this new paradigm is

Flag it, then tag it, THEN frag it!

In other words, announce your intention to tag, and have a "time-out" before proceeding with the tag ... and if the tag is removed, either proceed to the next step in the protocol, or else MOVE ON.
Administrators: If you do speedy delete this article, then in the spirit of WP:Please do not bite the newcomers, consider leaving a note on the Talk page for Jim Lawn (talk · contribs) ... explain that you concur with the reasons for the speedy deletion, and have exercised your authority as an Administrator to delete it ... this should shorten the time it takes for the author to appeal for restoration of the article because it was just an unfinished "work in progress," or they neglected to tag it as a WP:STUB.
It would certainly require a little extra time and effort for you, but it may keep Some Other Editor from being blocked for reverting the deletion of tags after an article has been recreated, all because there was no paper trail ... after all, I took the time to start a message thread about this article on their Talk page, so all you have to do is append your own "stencil" message ... this is for that Very Small percentage of cases where a mistake has been made by being Too Hasty in our collective judgment of this article's unworthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia as presented for the first time. :-)

I think we can all agree that Haste is the Dark Side of the Speedy Deletion process, and these draft protocols are designed to "soften the blows" of the "iron fist in the velvet glove" ... for all of the parties involved.

Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 10:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The last version of the page before the redirect was tagged as a CSD, as it was a recreated version of a page deleted earlier, without a deletion review. If you want to tag it with CSD again, you might pop that last version back up rather than tag the redirect. MrZaiustalk 11:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The redirect occurred during the time that I was putting boilerplate warnings on the author's talk page and this talk page as per my DRAFT protocol for DB-NOCONTEXT ... and I was also interrupted by them leaving a message on my User page instead of my Talk page (I had to move and answer it) ... since I was Too Tired to deal with this any longer (and Some Other Editors seemed to be involved as well) I put the CSD tag on the page so that at least one would be there if it was restored/reverted/whatever.
I've been at the keyboard for Too Long tonight (and getting sick of these frelling edit conflicts while trying to reply!) ... I'll deal with this after I've had some sleep ... that is, if the dust hasn't already settled by then. :-) —68.239.79.82 11:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I am still trying to get this page right. I am pleased that the erroneous redirect of this page to Non-Profit Organization has been fixed. Thank you for this. I will make sure that there are more links included to reputable sources in the next 24 hours. I hope this works?Jim Lawn 11:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Main thing we need is for the article to be written in an encyclopedic tone and to satisfy the notability guidelines. If those two points can be established, the article will no longer be a candidate for speedy deletion. Might also check out WP:MoS while you're at it, but basic style issues won't prompt a deletion. However, if the page is deleted by a sysop, please use Wikipedia:Deletion review before recreating the page yourself, to allow the edit history et al to be preserved. MrZaiustalk 11:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OK understood - I will concentrate on encyclopedic tone and notability guidelines. I will fix this within the next 24 hours - does this still mean I need to go through deletion review? I am new to this and I am not clear if I have been deleted by a sysop or not. Many thanks for your help and patience.Jim Lawn 12:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

So I hope I have now addressed the basic concerns around tone and notability. I have also ensured there are references and citations included. Now keen for more feedback to continue building and improving on this article.Jim Lawn 01:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It appears that I was mistaken ...

When I saw the first version of this article as recreated after a previous speedy deletion, I was going to tag it with {{db-nocontext}} ... but now that the author has added all of those external links as references, I can see that it's just vanispamcruftisement for http://NotJustForProfit.org, and "confidence is high" that if not deleted, then it will appear near the top of the list on a Google search Real Soon Now ... which is (IMHO) the sole reason for its creation, protestations from the author notwithstanding. (Can you say, "conflict of interest?")

I'm not even going to waste any time trying to put lipstick on this pig by making proper citations and a table of references ... instead, I will just try to forget that I ever saw it, and simply MOVE ON. —68.239.79.82 05:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I think you are mistaken ...

I am sorry you feel the way you do, but I think you are mistaken. I do not know who is behind NotJustForProfit.org and I am not suggesting that the people behind the url are the ones 'leading' the way on the principle of 'Not Just For Profit'- but I do know a number of people from the various conferences I have been to in the UK and US who have suggested visiting it - consequently I referenced it; clearly I am now finding out who is behind the url. 'Not Just For Profit' is a term which is gaining increasing usage in social entrepreneur and social media circles - in my Not For Profit organisation (which I have not referenced) - we are working at the highest levels with many key players - not least SustainAbility, Maplecroft, Amnesty, Save the Children, Skoll Institute. We were all surprised that there was not already an entry for 'Not Just For Profit' in Wikipedia.

Nevertheless, I have removed reference to NotJustForProfit.org as the last thing I want to do is cause offense - I do not know what vanispamcruftisement means, but it sounds bad. I hope this is acceptable to the Wikipedia hierarchy? 86.150.143.39 08:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been no article about the subject because of the lack of reliable source publications about it (see WP:Attribution) ... and try clicking the link for an explanation of the V-word ... it is referenced so often by Wikipedia editors in deletion discussions that it has a shortcut of its own ... WP:VSCA ... see this current AfD for an example of its usage. —68.239.79.82 18:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. So given I have explained your assumption that I was trying to promote a site/company of my own is wrong, I take it use of the V-word in the case was erroneous? The term 'Not Just For Profit' is in regular and well recognised use. I will dig up more of the media references (BBC etc) to this term if this is the issue? 86.150.143.39 19:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now included references to the concept of 'Not Just For Profit' from Bournemouth University, the Guardian and UK Govt. I will continue to add to this article over te coming weeks, I will encourage others to do so also and I hope other Wikipdia users wll choose to do so also. Many thanks for the guidance - sorry if it was frustrating taking a novice through how to put an article together. I'll know for next time.