User talk:HealthGal/Tracey Powell

As the creator of this article, I do not understand why it is being tagged for speedy deletion. The content is informational, verifiable, and non-biased. All statements with respect to the subject matter can be (and are) backed up by external references, and as the subject matter has been written up in numerous forms of external media, it should meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I am more than happy to revisit this article and work to improve it, but feel that a speedy deletion tag is actually a bit uncalled for. This was the first article that I created for Wikipedia and as such, requested feedback yet received no responses for over a month. Rather than a speedy deletion tag, I believe that some constructive feedback is in order. Thank you. --HealthGal (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I can quite understand that it must be frustrating to wait for a month for feedback, get none, and then see a speedy deletion tag. However, Wikipedia depends on volunteers, and unfortunately the number of requests for feedback is more than the number that can be dealt with comfortably by the number of volunteers available, so that there is often a large backlog. Anyway, here are a few comments: I hope they are helpful. "Powell has been hailed as a pioneer" looks fairly promotional to me, and so do several other statements in the article. Nevertheless, on reflection perhaps lack of evidence of notability is more of an issue than the promotional character of the article. I have not found much in the way of independent coverage in reliable sources. Some of the "references" given did not, in fact, mention the facts they were supposed to support, some of them are from Powell himself or organisations associated with him, and at least one did not even mention him. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I do appreciate the feedback, as it gives me something to work with. I am happy to address your concerns regarding the promotional tone and make adjustments accordingly. However, with respect to notability, I strongly disagree, as Powell has been quoted and referenced in external media throughout the years. In fact, tests.com, a site with which Powell has no direct affiliation, deems him credible enough to warrant expert status (please see [1]), and the fact that a simple google search produces government documents with his name attached should lend to his notability as a person of interest with respect to the related subject matter at hand. I do appreciate your position with respect to notability, but at the same time, I've reviewed the policy many times over and it still seems to me that it is, to an extent, a bit open-ended. I recognize that pointing to articles with similar issues on the notability front will not necessarily help my case, but at the same time feel that this article is far better written and more encyclopedic than many others that have not been tagged as such. I therefore respectfully ask you to reconsider the speedy deletion tag and allow me to adjust the tone of the article accordingly. Thank you. --HealthGal (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

One additional thing: I do not see how this article meets the criteria for speedy deletion. If the issue is notability, then Wikipedia's guidelines for speedy deletion specifically state that notability is not, by itself, sufficient to justify speedy deletion. Since you state above that your issue with this article is not the "advertising" aspect but instead notability, I again respectfully ask that you reconsider this particular tag. Thank you. --HealthGal (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'll jump in here and try to help out. As for DS not being for notability, it's not. An article can't be speedily deleted because it's not notable but is it notability isn't asserted or claimed. I haven't read the article yet but I'll go and see if notability has been claimed. If it has been claimed, notability would be discussed and decided up in an 'AfD' (Article for Deletion) but we can talk about that later if needed. I'll go do some work now and come back here to explain/comment. OlYeller^Talktome 20:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so after a quick read, the article is written like a news article or newsletter. That can be condemning if it's too weasely or shows a point of view which is probably why an editor tagged it as such. Besides that, there hasn't been any claim to notability by Wiki's notability guidelines that I can see. Being a CEO of a company/organization may have been a claim if the company was public (generally makes a person notable). He hasn't, from what I can find, had any articles written about him by reliable sources. He hasn't There's no claims that he has won any notable awards for his service either which would have helped prove notability. I know that notability guidelines and CSD can be confusing at first but I would have to agree with the CSD nomination for the subject not being notable. I commend his work and he may be in the future but I don't think that he is right now. I'll watch this page and get more involved if it should survive the SD nom. OlYeller^Talktome 20:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)