src: dictoastmasters.com
Video Talk:Toastmasters International
Gutted article!!!
@JzG: just gutted 90% of the article [1]. Why is history promotional!?! Tom Ruen (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:COIN. Wikipedia requires reliable, independent, secondary sources. The entire article was built from affiliated sources. TMI websites, books by Smedley, press releases. The result is inherently promotional. Please do feel free to rebuild using independent sources but remember to exclude obvious PR. That is a challenge for this group as it engages in a lot of PR. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@JzG: I suggest in future instead of blanking almost an entire article, first try and improve it. If you think it is promotional or self-sourced, then make it neutral and find better sources. If not, add some maintenance tags with some main points that need fixing in the talk page. Deleting everything is just pure laziness. If it was COPYVIO I would understand but you've not provided a source to back that up. This borderlines on vandalism. I'm rather disappointed that this came from a veteran user, especially an admin. As per WP:IMPROVE:
- Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
UaMaol (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)-
- Yup, that's exactly what I did. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have been looking at this article for some months and likewise wondering if there were any reliable sources cited. The basis of Wikipedia is the summarization of reliable source. If we have no source material, we have no content for articles.
- For a public speaking organization Toastmasters seems to have a long history of being media shy. At the least it is not easy to find third-party publications about this organization online. If someone wanted to develop the article I think that a good first step would be to write them and ask them for citations or copies to journalism or research attention which they might have gotten. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
-
- I just saw this and now realize qhy the article was so puzzlingly short. User:Tomruen, User:Uamaol, the proper response here is to create a good article using WP:RS. Blue Raspberry's assertion that sources are scarce is absurd. There has been INDEPTH coverage in reliable media for decades.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
-
- @E.M.Gregory: I will again confirm that I checked the deleted sources and agree that they do not meet Wikipedia's reliable source standard. I did a Google search for other sources. I do not see in depth coverage anywhere, either in this article after ~10 years or online.
- This does not seem to be an organization which has sought to establish a third-party media presence since the advent of Internet.
- Gregory, can you demonstrate otherwise? Show some sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments