Talk:Catching Lives

Notable Article

I do not wish to impinge on the good name of the initial author and wishing to uphold the assumption of good faith I nevertheless feel this is a promotional item consisting of original research. Specifically (barring welcomed evidence to the contrary) I wonder if the subject is suitably notable as this is not clear from the text. I should point out my general alck of any evidence for this aside from stray HTML that is consistent with a copy and paste action from another source.

I have no idea if one and a half years without a single citation is considered a long time but I lean towards significant action (delete or heavily reduce) if some citable sources are not forthcoming. Also there is a potential conflict of interest as I come from Thanet (and have yet to hear about this foundation from other sources). Given these facts and my feelings I feel it could be unwise for me to act without the input of other editors.

--Lord Matt (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at who wrote the first article I now feel some of my feelings about the article are maybe in error. I am concerned about the notability and lack of citations but everything else I wrote might be rubbish. --Lord Matt (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Happened to be passing so I've cleaned up a lot of it, I agree a lot wasn't really encyclopaedic and it's hard to reference since they dropped their old website and reduced their scope. It looks like the Cliftonville office is no longer occupied, the sign is no longer there and it may be up for sale along with the church next door, but they haven't yet officially moved the registered office. Le Deluge (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Building upon the work of the earlier copyeditors I have had a go with the page too but accept it struggles to be notable.Ed1964 (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catching Lives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516213323/http://www.catchinglives.org/pdf/Partner-Pack.pdf to http://www.catchinglives.org/pdf/Partner-Pack.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930085907/http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/archive/628647/Collaborators-Mergers-save-Kent-care-charities/ to http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/archive/628647/Collaborators-Mergers-save-Kent-care-charities/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)