Talk:Maytree (organisation)

Serious issues with article
I've edited this to include the fact they will not have any form of contact with homeless people, an important revision for anyone who does need help. I contacted them earlier this year when I really needed help. They refused to do a thing because I had no address. I have tried to keep my edit neutral, but I had a very negative experience with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.139.41 (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to say, I've stayed there recently and my personal experience might counter this criticism in a helpful way. I publicly reviewed them on 11th Nov 2013 on Google and wasn't afraid to put my name to it (R Exley).

The article seems to be an advertisement for this organisation. That's a shame, because if it's work is really notable then I'd like to know more about why this is so. And just because it's a charity doesn't mean that it's OK to write about how good it is - after all, there are presumably a group of staff people who have just as much interest in selling this organisation as if they were employed in a business.

'Unique' is a very very big claim for an article on Wikipedia (which is read all over the world). Anyway, further down the article it says that the Samaritans first used the phrase 'befriending' so this rather suggests that what Maytree does isn't 'unique'.

IF the Maytree is really 'unique' and so different that it deserves an encyclopaedia article all to itself, then it should be possible to prove this (where are the citations to external sources - and the Guardian one isn't convincing evidence by the way) - or at least to talk in convincing terms about its uniqueness.

Sorry to be so critical. As an external observer you've given me little to tell me about why this article deserves to exist. Every charity I know about says that what it does is really good... and some of them, even those with passionate staff and volunteers, do more harm than good.

Please improve this article - I'd like to know more about what's special about this organisation, or I'd like to see this article removed completely. Hignopulp (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree; this page seems like little more than an advert. It needs to be either heavily modified or deleted. Zenjazzygeek (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)