Talk:Valpo Velvet

(Untitled)
I think that this page has a good amount of content, but I feel that the organization could be improved upon. Some topic areas have a lot of information under one heading, and I think the article would be easier to understand if we broke some of these down into more specific sections.

speedy decline
An article which was curated and carefully shepherded through creation. Does not meet csd G11 criterion. Dloh cierekim  01:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing/notability
Hi, , , , ,

I've gone through and cleaned the article up a little. One of the biggest alterations I did was to remove a large chunk of the reception section. I think that this was likely what was causing the other editor to see the article as promotional. While doing this I also cleaned up some of the sources and removed some of them, and I wanted to make some notes about sourcing and notability.

One of the first things I need to note is that sources like MyFitnessPal would not be seen as reliable because anyone can add an entry to. I doubt that anything on there is false, but this technically makes it unusable for Wikipedia's purposes. I also noted that there were a lot of WP:TRIVIAL sources in the article. What this means is that there are sources that only briefly mention the business in passing, in relation to another topic. These types of sources cannot show notability for the company. Also, notifications of events cannot be used to show notability either. Another thing to note is that participation in events does not always give notability and in most cases local festivals would not be the type of event that would show notability, unfortunately. Most local and smaller events wouldn't. (Small and local events are the types of events that only gain local coverage, despite their size.)

The sources from newspapers and magazines that discuss the company are good, however be careful about them since they also look to be local sources. I don't always agree with this, but local sources tend to be greatly depreciated on Wikipedia. A good thing to look for would be book sources that discuss the company and sourcing outside of the immediate area, as this can help show a good depth of coverage.

Other than that, the article looks very nice and you've done a good job of going over the background of the business, as well as what makes it a "mom and pop" business. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Shalor (Wiki Ed). I think in the future I need to be more careful about allowing students to move forward with such a regional business. Your comments about sources that establish notability will be helpful to share more generally with students, too. Aschuet1 (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem! I always feel bad when it comes to stuff like this because a lot of these businesses are pretty major in their areas, but fall short of Wikipedia's criteria, which is admittedly pretty strict to pass for businesses. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)