User talk:Douglasawain/waragainstviolence.org

As reviewing administrator, I I do not think this is acceptable as an article. Here's why:

The article needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. It also needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release. Remember not to copy from a web site -- first it's a copyright violation, but, even if you give us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable.

Include only the material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the organization and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the organization, or to prospective clients--that sort of content is considered promotional. Keep in mind that the goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner, which is not the style of  press releases or  web sites, which are usually more expansive. The content should be purely descriptive, not urging people to participate, or discussing your plans for the future. Rather, it must discuss your accomplishments. If you are a new organization, this may not yet be possible. In that case, after there has been significant press coverage, only then can there be an article. And remember that it not be the sort of press coverage that amounts to a press release, but the sort that indicates that an independent editorial judgment has been made that your organization is worth the attention. For further information see our FAQ about business, organizations, and articles like this and also WP:FIRST.

As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of the organization wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know.

If you think you can do it right according to our guidelines, improve the article. I shall take a look in the middle of next week, and move it to mainspace if it is suitable. But it cannot remain here in the present state, for it amounts to an advertisement for the organization and its programs. We're not a stringent about that in what we call user space as in the actual encyclopedia, but this is not at an acceptable level. If you decide that the article cannot presently meet the requirements, you can facilitate matters by placing at the top of this page a line reading :.

I do not want to discourage you, but to urge you to write a proper article if it is possible; if it is not yet possible, please help us by improving our other articles on related topics.  DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)