User talk:Arizonavegan

Your draft article, Draft:Jesse & Julie Rasch Foundation

Hello, Arizonavegan. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Jesse & Julie Rasch Foundation".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Jesse & Julie Rasch Foundation}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your article

Do please take note that if that article is to be made ready for the encyclopaedia it will need to be expanded to include the fact that most of the claims made by the foundation are refuted or fraudulent, and many of those involved are quacks. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy,

The foundation is a government regulated registered charity in Canada. It does not directly undertake research or make health claims, it provides financial grants to university medical researchers to explore the potential of natural compounds in the treatment of lymphoma. In the case of NutritionFacts, the site itself is a non-profit that covers nutrition research in medical journals. Nutrition research is inherently controversial but I am not certain on your references to quacks or how this affects the eligibility for the article? --Arizonavegan (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, nutrition research is not in the least bit controversial. There are many respected dieticians and diet and nutrition research are an integral part of the study of human health. What is controversial is quack diet advice. Being a registered charity means nothing. There are registered charities devoted to promoting that most refuted of all bullshit, homeopathy. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the foundation covered in the article funds numerous charitable projects, one of which is the website NutritionFacts. The foundation has also made major gifts to large cancer hospitals. So I am unclear why this article is being refused. There is no quack diet advice being funded by the charity. All the university research studying compounds in the treatment of cancer have the aim to develop therapies. Arizonavegan (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being a charity does not confer validity. There are charities that exist to promote homeopathy, which is unambiguously bullshit. People have studied whether homeopathy can be used as a cure for cancer. It can't. NutritionFacts is a gestalt made of two words, the second presumably used ironically in this case. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jesse & Julie Rasch Foundation (September 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Deleted once before 9 years ago as not having anything at the time for notability; at this time, it also seems questionable, focus with only the best in-depth third-party news sources overall, and no press releases, trivial passing mentions or interviews. The better major news sources (however, that are not any of the previously mentioned), the better chances of a better article.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jesse & Julie Rasch Foundation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jesse & Julie Rasch Foundation (November 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

To answer your questions, unfortunately no, because the one link you showed me is still not enough and there's also no inherited notability from listing their supported charities. All in all, it simply seems too soon.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jesse & Julie Rasch Foundation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 18:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Jesse & Julie Rasch Foundation

Hello, Arizonavegan. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Jesse & Julie Rasch Foundation".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]