User talk:Emilyrbolen

Reply

Hi, thanks for message. I deleted your article because

it did not provide adequate independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the company, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management. Much of your text was either unsourced or sourced to the unit or similar non-independent bodies.
It's not clear why the centre is notable. Even the 1200 patient figure is a prediction, not a fact, and referenced to a site that's just repeating what the unit has said. To show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, funding, expenditure patient through-put, and to make it clear why this is more notable than other cancer treatment units. Strangely, you consider that the fact that it has machinists and engineers to look after the equipment to be notable, when it would be more notable if it wasn't maintained! A great deal of insignificant stuff, but only one sentence on how the therapy actually works .
it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.

You only wikilink to articles associated with the unit, even Seattle and proton therapy aren't deemed worthy
Examples of unsourced or inappropriately sourced claims presented as fact include: it is the only proton therapy center within a 1,000-mile radius... all have expertise in proton therapy and have trained at medical schools nationwide... ensure the accuracy and safety of all physical aspects of patients' treatment...
I get the impression that this is run as a commercial enterprise, like many US medical facilities, but there is no mention as to whether treatment is charged for, you need to clarify the status of the facility, whether it's profit making, non-profit, government-funded or what. All the partnership stuff just leaves me confused (I'm not American, so I might have missed something)

the article was created in a single edit without wikilinks or references, and looks as if was copied from an unknown and possibly copyrighted source. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.
You have a conflict of interest when editing this article, and you must declare it on the article talk page. {{Connected contributor|User1=Emilyrbolen |U1-EH=yes |U1-declared=yes |U1-otherlinks=COI declared in the edit summary of first edit}} See also Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.
If you work directly or indirectly for the unit, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. Regardless, if you are paid directly or indirectly by the company you are writing about, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Emilyrbolen. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Emilyrbolen|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

I'm prepared to accept that you didn't intend to promote the unit, but I think it's a valuable resource for the community around me (I live in Seattle) and for Cancer patients to understand new techniques in the field doesn't entirely square with this project's role.

I've seen worse. If you recreate, make sure that everything is referenced to third-party sources, that you make clear why this unit is notable and how the therapy works. Don't get bogged down in detail about obvious staffing, and avoid weasel words such as expertise. Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]