User talk:Lisa peters1234

January 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page C3Life.com has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://en.wordpress.com/tag/stoma/ (matching the regex rule \bwordpress\.com). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of C3Life.com
A tag has been placed on C3Life.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Wuh Wuz  Dat  14:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether this is a worthwhile undertaking of value for people with ostomates. The question is whether it is notable in Wikipedia terms. That normally means that there has already been significant attention paid to it by others, and that there has been non-trivial published discussion by independent, reliable sources.  You need to provide at least some indication of how and why this site (or the group that operates it) is important or significant. Whether the article is named for the site or the group doesn't much matter -- significance must be claimed in either case. See our notability guideline for organizations and our notability guideline for web sites. DES (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response! We understand and appreciate this insight; we will apply this new knowledge in the revised article content. Can you advise on the best approach in terms of next steps? How much time do we have to provide the additional information before the article is deleted? Are we at risk by keeping it in its current state? Or, is it better for us to request for deletion of this article? Your help is greatly appreciated. Lisa peters1234 (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no "specified time" after which an article under criteria for speedy deletion will be deleted. However, if you don't clearly state why you believe that the subject is notable on the article's talk page, the article is very likely to be deleted soon. If you state a reasonable description of why the subject is notable, then you may be given additional time with which to fix up the article. Alternatively, you might request userfication of the article to give you some time. If you'd like, I can do that for you. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 18:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What is needed first of all is some indication in the article why this site, or this organization, is significant. Activities on a more than local level would help. If the article is deleted, or if you want time to work on it without the pressure, you can move it to be a Help:Userspace draft. If the article should be deleted before you have time to fix it up, the deleting admin, or any other admin such as myself, can restore the content as a userspace draft for you to work on improving.
 * You should also decide whether the article is to focus on the web site, or on the organization which operates the site. If the site is the sole or primary focus of the organization the article should probably focus on the site, otherwise on the organization with a section on the site.
 * Once you have indicated why the site or organization is notable, you will need to document this. You should find independent, published, non-trivial reliable sources that cover or discuss the subject. This means not a passing mention or a directory listing, not a blog or forum, and not anything published by the organization itself, nor a simple reprint of a press release. The source may be online or printed (or both). You should give enough information for other editors to verify the citation and that it supports the facts in the article. others can and will help with the detailed formatting of the citations, that is less important.
 * Finally if you are closely associated with the subject, in particular if you work for it or own or run it, you should read our conflict of interest guideline. It is hard for most people to be neutral about their own work, but all Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view. DES (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You might also want to consider the Article Incubator. DES (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for both of your responses -- very helpful! What action do I need to perform in order to move this into the Article Incubator? Lisa peters1234 (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Normally you would simply use the "move" command to move it to the incubator space. However, because you are a newer editor, you do not yet have that capability. If you would like, I can move it there for you. Just say the word. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 20:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I take that back, the article has since been deleted. You may want to contact the deleting admin to ask him to restore it for incubation, if you do not still have a copy. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 20:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

C3Life now in incubator
I have restored ther article and moved it to Article Incubator/C3Life.com. There you will have time to improve it to a valid Wikipedia articel, if possible. Work on the reasons for notability and supporting independant sources, would be my advice. DES (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Aw, thank you! We haven't logged back in, in a few days - so thank you very much for doing this for us. Lisa peters1234 (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for cleaning up the article. That is a good start, but before it can return to mainspace we are going to have to have some evidence of notability, which basically means third party sources that talk about the website.  For example, newspaper articles or reviews by major websites.  Do you know of anything like that? I can help you add the required info, if you do. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You have been extremely helpful through this entire process and your feedback is greatly appreciated! The ostomy community is a rather niche market, so we are hoping you can provide some insight on how Wikipedia defines a 'major website.' Also, what is the nature of the references that are required? (e.g. letter of recommendation, quote, etc). We have various partner organizations such as the UOAA, Ostomy Lifestyle, and Get Your Guts in Gear (GYGIG) where we could certainly obtain references to validate our value to the ostomy community, however, we want to make sure that we are obtaining the correct information for inclusion in the article. Also, here are some examples that I wanted to run by you: http://stanford.wellsphere.com/digestive-health-article/c3life-ostomy-community-website/725460 http://www.uoaa.org/files/uoaa_updates/uoaa_update_2009-09.pdf Lisa peters1234 (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I just used the word 'major' for convenience, since that is usually more clear than the actual requirement. Wikipedia considers a source valid if it is reliable.  What is or is not reliable can get tricky, but in short a source is usually reliable if 1) has editorial control & a reputation for fact checking or 2) is regarded as an authority by other reliable sources.  So, for example, most newspapers & magazines qualify, while bloggers generally do not unless they are regarded as experts.  When in doubt, one can ask for opinions at the reliable sources noticeboard.
 * Turning to the specific examples, the first seems unlikely to be a RS unless the poster is some kind of recognized authority. The second, would most likely qualify as a RS, but fails the "in depth" (a source most talk about the subject in depth to establish notability) requirement since it just says "visit C3L for pictures." --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)