Talk:Partners in Policymaking

Untitled

I believe I have addressed the earlier concern about "self-promotion" by changing the language and format. Once again, this is a "free" program. You cannot pay to be a member. The only "requirement" is that people want to build a better future with people with disabilities.

The "non-notable" group has been addressed (I hope) by citing the U.S. government's finding that there are 54 million people with disabilities in the U.S. alone, as Partners includes all disabilities. The UN number is 650 million. So, we are a notable group, and with the aging of the "baby boomers," we will be getting bigger.Policymaking (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not about being free or not; the article reads like an ad. This is an encyclopedia. It shouldn't sound that way. If it's made more encyclopedic (I'd contribute but I know nothing about the subject) then it'd be fine. Furthermore, your username seems to imply that you only created the account to make this article, which would appear to promote... oh, you. Alinnisawest (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I took another quick look at the article. Couple of things that might help you get the article up to speed- first, the article says a lot but doesn't say anything at all. What is Partners in Policymaking, anyway? All I got from the article is that it's some kind of training program for... something, I have no idea what. Also, try making it more concise. A complete listing of every service available is unnecessary; a short, general description would be better. Just some ideas to keep this from deletion. Alinnisawest (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I tried the "longer article" approach earlier, to better explain the program, and that got deleted immediatly for "blatant advertising." I then could not figure out how to get back my screen name, so I just went with this one. Your re-write is better than what I had. Thanks for your help! Ed

After a couple of days, I now see a message that says, "This article WAS proposed for deletion." What is that supposed to mean? I thought with the re-writes and the fact that it lasted a couple of days, the article was OK, except for future edits. No reasons were given for the posting of this tag. I oppose the deletion of this valuable material. policymaking72.73.38.159 (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Policymaking (talk • contribs) 02:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's just a notice so that everyone knows it survived one deletion attempt already; the article isn't currently nominated for deletion. All pages that survived prods (proposed deletions) have tags like that. --Alinnisawest(talk) 01:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Thank you very much for the clarification.

Clean-up

I've done a lot of cleanup to meet the standards of WP:MOS. It needs more. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)