User talk:174.71.218.178

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Draft:St. Jude&, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Melcous (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:St. Jude's Ranch For Children


A tag has been placed on Draft:St. Jude's Ranch For Children, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Melcous (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Help me!
I work for St. Jude's Ranch for Children as their media person. I've been working since 2016 to get input on our programs, approval from supervisors, and the "ok" to get our information on Wikipedia and now everything has been deleted! Why?! I followed the link regarding "speedy deletion" but that doesn't make any sense. We are a non-profit organization that has been around since 1966, and we foster abused and neglected children. Why would anyone have a problem with this? People often get us confused with St. Jude Research Hospital so we thought this would be a great avenue to help set the record straight and educate people. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? Who would've requested deletion and why would it be so important to delete it without even hearing my side of the story? St. Jude's Ranch for Children provides a service FREE of charge so I don't understand why anyone would think it is advertising. We are a legitimate organization that has been in operation for over 50 years so I don't know why someone would think it could be fraudulent or spam. I would really appreciate some direct answers.

Please help me with... getting it back on Wikipedia.

174.71.218.178 (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Jackie Yoxen
 * Wikipedia is not a place for promotion, even if that promotion is simply to shout to the rooftops "we exist". Information on Wikipedia must be factually verifiable and, more importantly, written in a neutral tone. Throughout the now-deleted page you used the phrase "Our provides X service", turning it into little more than a brochure or informational pamphlet. In other words, less "we" and "our" in the body of the text.
 * In addition, you used zero references to support the statements you made. Using primary sources such as the Ranch's own site is strongly discouraged, and thus you should add independent reliable sources that talk specifically about the Ranch.
 * To answer your last question, normally drafts are not deleted outright unless they are very promotional and there is nothing to salvage, which is (unfortunately) true in this case. If I really tried I might be able to salvage a sentence or three, but at that point you (knowing the subject much better) might as well just start over. If you want more help, change the help me-helped back into a help me, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. To reply directly to me, start your message with . Primefac (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft stage!
Not understanding. How is giving factual information promoting? We are not asking for money, fame or even clients since children that stay here have to be brought to our attention through the Department of Family Services and accepted by us. We simply want people to know who we are since we do have thousands who are interested. My article was still in the DRAFT stages which includes putting in references. The only thing you said that was helpful was the perspective "our" "we". If I were to change that and add references, all this work and time could've been salvaged. It's like you didn't even try to make this work for us. Very disappointing.

Please help me with...

174.71.218.178 (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Let me quote from the draft: "offers individualized treatment and holistic care", "a home-like environment and highly-trained staff", "the only foster facility in the state that is able to", "a tremendous achievement", "successfully implemented high performance standards", "delivering the highest quality services to all of its stakeholders". That's all from a single paragraph, but I think I can stop here. How is that not advertising? Maybe some of those are facts; others clearly are opinions. The only source given for any of them was your own CEO, clearly not the kind of reliable secondary source Wikipedia content should be based on. Yes, if you had rewritten the draft in its entirety based on what secondary sources report about your organization, that might have become a viable article. But less than that would hardly have sufficed, and you can still write a new draft based on what secondary sources report about the organization, so you haven't lost anything by the deletion of that gushing self-praise. Huon (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there, you should read the answer to your help request above, it is very good at answering your question. Also, please note that you wouldn't own the article, and you wouldn't have any more say over what goes into it than anyone else with an internet connection who can access the page and edit it (see here). Also, regardless of whether you are a business or not-for-profit, articles can still be "promotional" - see here. I would also advise you to read Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest (COIs), which you have as you work for the organisation, and there is a page of the help available to editors with COIs here. Please note that all articles have to meet notability standards, the ones for organisations can be found here. Basically, Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. If you wish to start another article, please read Your First Article and then I would advise you to use the Article Wizard. If you need more help, you can, or just leave a message on my talk page.  Seagull123  Φ  17:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I also just saw that you said you work for St. Jude's. Please take a look at the disclosure requirements in the Terms of Use that are explained at WP:PAID. Since an IP editor does not have a user page, disclosure should be made on the talk pages of the articles you edit, or in the edit summaries. Huon (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I would need to be able to see the article to verify what you are quoting, but I believe the quote you mention is from COA person and is quoted by him not my CEO to explain what COA is (a verifiable accreditation):

"a tremendous achievement", "successfully implemented high performance standards", "delivering the highest quality services to all of its stakeholders". That's all from a single paragraph, but I think I can stop here. How is that not advertising? Maybe some of those are facts; others clearly are opinions.'' The only source given for any of them was your own CEO, clearly not the kind of reliable secondary source Wikipedia content should be based on."

Maybe you should look a little closer to what is actually being said and by whom.

It is a fact that we are the only place in the state that has the ability to house foster siblings together, that we offer therapy depending on the needs of each individual child according to the therapist, clinician and caseworker that evaluate the child and that they do live in homes on our campus.

According to your comments to me it sounds like you might want to look at some of the articles on your pages like St. Jude Children's Research Hospital which lists things very similarly. However, I will read the links and pages listed to see how to improve and start over. Is there any way to get input as we go rather than just getting deleted and having to start over?
 * I don't know who said what. What I do know is that the article cited a single reference, which was described as "Klarberg, Richard. President & CEO". If that's not your President and CEO but someone else's, I apologize for the misunderstanding, but that wasn't specified. The COA doesn't seem to know of Klarberg, so I still have no idea who Klarberg might be. Anyway, parts of the above were clearly not depicted as Klarberg's opinions, and I rather doubt even you will claim all of those accolades are factually accurate. Huon (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)