User talk:Torquil Sorensen/The Good Book Company

Speedy Delete Discussion

Thank you, Vicenarian, for the quick feedback, as I am relatively new to Wikipedia. I had noticed that someone (not me) had written an article sometime back, which was deleted because of a lack of references. I have put some references, but I will seek to rewrite the article to remove any taste of advertising, and I will add more (independent) references. (Torquil Sorensen (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Do a good rewrite to ensure neutrality, and it'll be good. I see that you have the page on your userspace - I'd advise working on it there and then moving it back into articlespace. An article in namespace won't be deleted for advertising as long as it's clear you're working on it as a draft. (See WP:NAMESPACE if you're not sure what I'm talking about here.) Cheers! Vicenarian (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I put an underconstruction tag in articlespace, or just leave it alone at the moment? (Torquil Sorensen (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

That's up to you. An admin will come by eventually and decide whether or not the article in its current form qualifies for speedy deletion. I believe it qualifies (which is not a slight against you, of course) so an underconstruction tag probably won't help. I'd work on it in userspace until it's up to speed for a move back to the main encyclopedia. Vicenarian (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Vicenarian said, none of the "sources" you added conforms our reliable sources guideline as far as I can see, so it would be a candidate for speedy deletion. I have userfied the article to User:Torquil Sorensen/The Good Book Company where you can improve the article. Regards So Why 10:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: in the end, I did not add any extra sources to the article space, because I took Vicenarian's advice to rework the article in my user-space. Thank you for the reference to the reliable source guideline - much appreciated. Cheers, Torquil Sorensen (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vicenarian. If you were willing to give me feedback on my latest attempt (on my Good Book Company user page), I'd be most grateful. I have tried pretty hard to remove the advertising feel, but I may easily have overlooked something. Torquil Sorensen (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Advice and Review

{{helpme}} As you can see, I'm pretty new at Wikipedia. I wrote an article in my homepage and loaded it up into articlespace. It got a speedy delete because it was too spammy, and then got userfied back to my homespace. Since then, I've reworked the article very hard so that it now has (I think) a neutral POV. I've also deleted some inferior sources and found other (better) sources.

Because I'm writing about an evangelical, Christian publishing company, these are generally not reported on in sources like the London Times. If you look at similar Christian organisations (in terms of their theological stance), I think that I have managed to provide a lot more sources than for similar, evangelical organisations that are listed on Wikipedia. For example, look at the scant sources for London City Mission, Evangelical Press and Day One Christian Ministries.

Before I load the article back into articlespace, I would love anyone's comments, either on the NPOV aspect or with respect to my sources, or on any other aspect. Cheers. Torquil Sorensen (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Torquil. I've played around with the wording a bit, and I've cleaned some of the spacing. For the most part, I like the article; looks fine. ^blurred _peace ☮ 18:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is OK to go live. Beware of comparisons to other articles; see WP:OTHERSTUFF. You need to put the name of the article in bold at the start of it. Perhaps you could improve it by using citation tags in the refs, one day - see user:chzz/help/refs - but I'd certainly say that it should be made live now, so that others can work on it too. Chzz ► 18:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for your input and tidy-ups - much appreciated. I've now bolded the heading. I will keep my original spelling for "enrolment" because I had written it in British English. And, thanks for letting me know about not comparing with other articles! Torquil Sorensen (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]