Asolk

Welcome!

Hello, Asolk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like The Research Alliance, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Click23 (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Research Alliance

A tag has been placed on The Research Alliance 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 an organization or company, 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 organizations and companies. 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 {{hangon}} 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. Click23 (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Research Alliance restored

Try this on for change. I removed the stuff that sounded like marketing copy. In a nutshell, the article ready like a corporate "About us" page. It actually asserts significance now. See WP:Corp for notability requirements. Talk more about its accomplishments.

If you don't mind me asking, what is your writing background? If you have been trained in marketing, then that is an entirely different style of writing. I only ask 'cause I have a had time explaining why what seemed right in the article was not encyclopedic. Mission statements in particular are promotional in nature and nebulous in content. The lead does says what the company is. It should also state what the subject does. State that clearly, in as few words as possible in the lead, and omit the mission statement entirely.

Not sure about the "Membership" section. It does nothing to assert the notability of the alliance. Probably a rephrase will get the info back in, but actually weakens the encyclopedic value.

Don't talk about goals, talk about deeds. Goals are what you tell someone to obtain by-in. We all have goals and ambitions, it's what we've done that makes us notable. Who has talked about the subject's deeds? I removed one ref that looked like a press release. The remaining one is trivial in nature. The sourcing must be more in depth and from someone not connected with the company. The more others have written about a subject, the better. Forbes is generally a good source. Any well-respected publication with a reputation for fact checking should be considered for sourcing. Information should be extensive and in depth.

I'm still not sure this meets notability requirements, but at least it does not a fit criteria for speedy deletion. Read the articles linked in the welcome template. Read User:Dloh/new. Place a {{helpme}} template on your talk if you need more help, as there are people more skilled than I in coaching editors. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 15:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Research Alliance

The article The Research Alliance has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, only source is WP:SPS.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SITH (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)