Talk:Better by design

Discussion as to the place of the article in Wikipedia

Self published references tag: I've removed the self-published-sources tag as this was placed without noting which sources it relates to. As far as I can tell, none of the sources referenced in the article are self-published. If there are any then I'm happy to have the tag re-instated or the offending references removed.

Notability tag: I've added secondary sources from the NZ Herald, Listener and primary sources from government websites such as the Ministry of Economic Development and the NZ Treasury to assist reviewers with determining notability. I've left the tag in place an will continue to add to the article with other sources that help clarify the notability of the page.

Speedy deletion tag: This seems to have been a drive-by tagging by Nafsadh as he hasn't added a reason for the speedy deletion. I'll assume the reason is notability and add some more detail to the article to explain notability. --Peterjthomson (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me, concisely written, very well referenced with three independent newspaper sources that cover 'Better by Design' in some detail. I've removed the 'notability' tag. Sionk (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions as to the content of the article

Better by Design is a significant programme by the New Zealand government and is of encyclopaedic interest to the community because it would be of interest to readers researching the following topics:

- Varying government subsidies, grants or programmes to support innovation and design thinking.

- New Zealand government interventions in the private sector.

- Public private partnerships where government funding is used to collaborate with the private sector.

Because it is important (A7 speedy deletion criteria) the article is not appropriate for speedy deletion. Even if it is eventually proven to not be notable, it is 'important' enough to warrant full consideration before deletion. --Peterjthomson (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because the Better by Design programme is interesting to a number of communities who would turn to Wikipedia as an information source: 1. New Zealand companies that participate in the programme or any person doing business with those companies. 2. Researchers looking for independent encyclopedic information on the programme. 3. The international design community who are researching various national approaches to government support of design. 4. Public policy researchers interested in Publicly-Funded/Privately-Delivered government programmes.

The notability guidelines state that Non-commercial organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: - The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. - Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.

Addressing these factors in turn. 1. The scope Better by Design programme is national in scale because it is a national programme available to companies based anywhere in New Zealand. 2. The information in the article is linked to multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources such as national circulation newspapers and magazines.

--Peterjthomson (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To address the A7 importance question I've added 5 new sources from academic and commissioned research reports that refer to the Better by Design programme. --Peterjthomson (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To address the G11 promotion question I've reviewed the article to ensure NPOV and made sure that every statement (or assertion) of fact has verifiable sources. As far as I can tell the article uses no adjectives or emotive language to suggest whether the programme is good or bad. I've been very careful in my editing because I may have a potential conflict of interest (as a former employee of NZTE). As such, I've done my best to ensure NPOV. Even so, the article is not exclusively promotional content and would not require a fundamental rewrite so it does not meet the test for G11 speedy deletion. --Peterjthomson (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raw URLs in references

If possible, could someone go through the references and convert them from raw URLS to citation templates? A good place to find citation templates is Category:Citation templates. Hasteur (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Independence of sources

This article is about a government project which funds commercial parties to carry out work related to design. From a WP:RS point of view, every funded party, their employees and PR people lack independence. Many of the New Zealand sources appear to be thus contaminated. For example http://www.dinz.org.nz/ is a funding recipient so their award to Alt design cannot be used for notability purposes. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Better by design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]