User talk:Inaffziger

Self published information
Hello! You added information to Global Health Innovative Technology Fund (GHIT) and PATH (global health organization) which was published by those organizations. Wikipedia maintains its quality by promoting use of WP:reliable sources, and we consider self published sources to be WP:PROMOTIONAL in most cases. For this reason, I reverted what you did.

I encourage you to add this kind of information, but when you do so, cite a source which is not published by the subject of the article. I care a lot about global health. I hope you agree that these rules keep people honest. Let me know if I can help you contribute more content.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  14:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Global Health Innovative Technology Fund (GHIT) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Global Health Innovative Technology Fund (GHIT) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Global Health Innovative Technology Fund (GHIT) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  14:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Response by author
Hi Bluerasberry. Thanks for the feedback. I get what you're saying. I'm working right now on the self-published sources issue. I'm new to Wikipedia, so how does this work? How long do I have to get the article into better shape for compliance with the rules? Or, is you're suggesting that it be moving to my own space somewhere, who does that and where exactly (is that the sandbox?)? And should I be having this discussion with you here, or on the discussion page suggested by you above. I went there but didn't see a way for me to respond. Thanks for being so helpful, I'm just learning the ropes! Inaffziger (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)inaffziger
 * Yes. At this point there is no clean way to move this because it has already gone live and therefore must have community review to remove, but you could post to the deletion page at Articles_for_deletion/Global_Health_Innovative_Technology_Fund_(GHIT). "Please WP:USERFY this article. I am new and want to work on it more in my own space." After a few days someone should do this. In the future, consider going through articles for creation for guidance and an initial review.
 * To make it live, it has to comply with WP:42. Start with sources, then only write an article reflecting what you find in sources. Practically every organization is horrified to learn that their media presence in no way reflects the brand in the minds of their executive and communications staff. Practically all organizations have a bad time on Wikipedia.
 * I am around if you post here. There are other places to post - perhaps if you wish to talk email me and we could talk by voice and sort a plan for you. My interest is in supporting any global health outreach in Seattle. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Thanks for the super useful response. I appreciate the help. I have assembled a list of third-party sources (the Economist, Nature magazine, Financial Times, etc.) today, and will put them in, adjust the text to reflect only these, and enter inline citations tomorrow morning US Pacific time.  So if we can hold off deleting the article until I've had a chance to do that, that would be great.  Thanks so much! By the way, your comment about organizations not realizing the brand in the public space is completely different from the brand intended is so true. And to be clear, I'm not trying to portray a brand, just to provide basic information about the org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inaffziger (talk • contribs) 06:02, 2 October 2014‎
 * Deletion is a community process which takes about a week. You already posted that you intend to add sources so you get some extra time, and I have no control over this beyond that.
 * Good luck with the sources. Message me if you need help or comment.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Blue Rasberry, I wanted to check in: I made changes to my page, adding more third-party sources and sticking to those (safe for direct quote of the mission/vision), and no one has commented on the article since. Does that mean it's good to go? Thanks! Inaffziger (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)inaffziger
 * It is in queue for review at Articles for deletion/Global Health Innovative Technology Fund (GHIT). Here is the inside scoop - people are more likely to comment quickly if you make it obvious what their decision to be. In looking at the links you used as citation, in my opinion some are bad, like this PATH one, because obviously PATH and GHIT have a financial relationship and incentive to talk about each other. This source is out. However, all you need in all of this is a few good sources to keep the article, and the rest can be sorted later. In the deletion discussion, say "I reviewed the available sources and added more. In my opinion, these are the best 2-4 sources which should be considered to establish notability". If you cut the review time of other volunteers they will be more likely to review this; otherwise, expect a delay for the queue.   Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)