User talk:Rletada

World Wide Workshop Foundation
Hi Rletada

It seems as though you have spent a lot of time on World Wide Workshop Foundation. As I have explained in its talk page, the article fails to demonstrate notability of its subject. As I suggested in the same talk page, it may be more appropriate to have an article on the Globaloria program as it appears (from the references in the World Wide Workshop Foundation) to have received at least some news coverage. I would recommend that you read carefully the three important Wikipedia policies on notability, verifiability, and conflicts of interest.

As it is now, in my opinion the article merits deletion on a number of counts. I'll monitor it for a while to see if it somehow is improved, but if not, I'll probably tag it for deletion.

Rgds Bongomatic (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of World Wide Workshop Foundation
I have nominated World Wide Workshop Foundation, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/World Wide Workshop Foundation. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Bongomatic (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Bongomatic (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability / References / COI / SOCK
Hi Rletada.

You wrote:


 * Hello Bongomatic,


 * Thanks for taking the time to view the article and for providing comprehensive feedback. You are correct that I was an intern at World Wide Workshop Foundation. However, at the time when I was working on this article, I was no longer employed at World Wide Workshop Foundation. If you further google my name, you would actually see that I am currently on a Fulbright Fellowship and on my way to the Philippines for 9 months.


 * I believe that there should be an article regarding the work of the Foundation because of its innovative approach in infusing technology and education. Their work is notable in this sense and is worthy as an encyclopedic article. It is informing my work as a Fulbright and of many colleagues in my field and others interested in education, ICTs for Development, innovation, 1:1 computing, social issue games, open source technology, social media technology and more.


 * I am confused. I included the first 5 references because they support information in he history and background of the organization. Isn't that relevant? How can I do this better?


 * The press links are articles about the Foundation's real work on the ground (MyGlobalLife is an edu-social network under the Globaloria Program, run by the Foundation). I found the organization through these press, and other sources, while in NYC and Boston.


 * Rletada (talk)

I suggest that you review the following key policies of Wikipeida: WP:N, WP:V, and WP:COI. The key to notability is "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" independent of the subject. The references you provided do not establish that there was any coverage at all of the Foundation. Rather, there was some (I would certainly not describe it as significant) coverage of one of the Foundation's projects. I don't suggest that the references don't provide context or that they would be eliminated from a hypothetical article on the topic that did establish notability--just that they themselves did not do so.

The "notability" you ascribe to the Foundation's "innovative approaches" may indeed be "worthy", but they don't satisfy the definition of notability in the context of WP:N.

Since I made my comments earlier, a mysterious new editor has started making amendments to the article. Are you familiar with the policy articulated at WP:SOCK?

Bongomatic (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)