User talk:Langabryggan

Welcome!
Hello, Langabryggan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Peridon (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Slow down
Here's where to create your article User:Langabryggan/DRAFT. Just click that and save it. Have a word with User:MelanieN - I've just pinged her so she may pop in here any time. She is brilliant at sorting article problems out. In the mean time, read WP:RS and start collecting them on the draft page. It's best to get the references in first - then write around them. You can't really use the old text as it was deleted for being promotional. It's a fresh start here. Get refs together and talk with Melanie. Otherwise you may mess it up... AND SIGN YOUR POSTS... 8-( Peridon (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Langabryggan (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Just done (I hope)
I've just submitted an article "Treasury Peer" for review containing links (references) to external sites. Just informative. Thanks for your kind help today. I wish you a great week!
 * I very much doubt that it'll be accepted. You haven't got the hang of reliable independent sources yet. The rebranding link is all quotes from you - that can't establish notability. LinkedIn is not independent, and nor is TP's site. This is why I wanted you to slow down and gather suitable references first. If you'd done that, and waited for Melanie, we could have had an article up in article space inside four or five days. AfC can take weeks to even look - they get backlogged. Another thing - if you claim 'most' anything, you have to prove it. That FTA link mentions TP only as your base of operations, and isn't about TP. You can't transfer notability to TP from yourself and two other authors who are not stated to be connected to TP. This may sound nitpicking, but it's what will happen at review. Unless you are very lucky. When Melanie appears (she was around yesterday our time), talk to her. The tone looks about right, by the way. That's an improvement. We have a saying, "Wikipedia is free to edit". We don't have one saying it's easy... Peridon (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I need to look for Melanie and hope she'll can catch the text before it will be reviewed. Will she contact me here you think? Langabryggan (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably. I pinged her. (Putting someone's name like User:Example on a talk page like I did above notifies them that someone's talking about them. We call it pinging. She's usually on West Coast time, though. Peridon (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * When you've got a moment, have a look at WP:PRIMER. Tells you a lot and is more readable than the policies. Peridon (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, is there a way to unsend/undo for review? Langabryggan (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - I can move it into your user space. Peridon (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Now at User:Langabryggan/Treasury Peer. Take your time - rushing never helps here. Peridon (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. It surely is too late to die young, however I'll try to learn not to rush~(on Wikipedia) :) You've been extremely helpful and giving. I owe you. Maybe you want to connect on LI (http://se.linkedin.com/in/magnuslind/)? Langabryggan (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry for my slow response, I've been busy in Real Life. As Peridon knows, I like to help new editors with their articles. Sometimes that means I help make their articles better. Other times it means I tell them the honest truth: that their subject matter does not meet Wikipedia requirements, so that no matter how much rewriting and improving we do, it is still not going to make it here. If that is the case, it's usually because the subject does not meet the notability requirements. No amount of improvement or rewriting will help, if the subject itself is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article.

So let's take a look at your article at User:Langabryggan/Treasury Peer. (It is "safe" here in your userspace. It's not part of the main encyclopedia, and no one will hassle you about it or try to delete it.) The first problem I see is that you have a conflict of interest in writing about your own organization. Wikipedia usually advises against writing about yourself - and if you do, it makes other Wikipedia editors especially careful in checking your facts and tone. Your facts and tone seem OK - it's not overtly promotional. So that's not the main problem.

The biggest problem is notability. For an organization, the requirements for an article are found at WP:ORG. They require that the subject has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. Treasury Peer does not appear to meet this requirement. All of the links in your draft article are to Treasury Peer sites; there is nothing independent. When I searched the Google News Archive I couldn't find anything at all about Treasury Peer. At Google Scholar I found only a single reference, and it was written by Magnus Lind so it is not independent. If independent newspapers and magazines and scholars are not writing about the organization, then it is not notable. If it is not notable, it won't be accepted as an article in Wikipedia, which is an international encyclopedia.

So the bottom line is: I could help you with a rewrite, to put it into Wikipedia's preferred style, cite the references properly, etc. But I'm afraid we would be wasting our time. If the article was put into the main Wikipedia space it would probably be deleted rather quickly as non-notable for lack of independent references.

So, is there anything you can do? You could insert a sentence about the organization into the article Treasurer at Treasurer.

Sorry to be so harsh! but I know you wanted an honest evaluation. There are many places where you can promote your organization - Facebook, LinkedIn, web pages, blogs, etc. - but Wikipedia is not one of them. If Treasury Peer later becomes more notable (that is, if it starts getting independent coverage from reliable sources), it would be possible to create an article then, but it would be best if you did not create it yourself. As Wikipedia says, if your organization is truly notable, somebody will probably create an article about it without any help from you.

I wish you good luck with your organization! and you are welcome to stick around at Wikipedia and edit articles - preferably articles that are not about you and your organization. How about your hometown, or your favorite sports team? --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Melanie, thanks a million for helping me out. I understand what has to be done. We need to work further on our credibility and return to Wikipedia to read what our write about us :) I'm very grateful to you for taking time to send this long text to me. It was very informative. Wikipedia is a very interesting phenomena, very innocent, clean and clear. I wish you the best of luck and a fruitful, happy and healthy life 77.244.232.30 (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)