Stefanlorimer

Related to Family Movement

This entry is the work of a group of people, the entry is based on well known and established facts and historical evidence. Not all these facts and resources are available to the current author and more evidence is being sourced. We are working on conforming to the guidelines and would appreciate any help in formatting. Concern about editing more popular entries has prevented any addition work on notability until addition references were sourced. Stefanlorimer (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed your {{hangon}} tag from the article since that's used to contest speedy deletion; for proposed deltions you disagree with you can just remove the PROD tag yourself and explain your rationale in the edit summary or on the talk page as you've already done. (That may seem unnecessarily bureaucratic, but given the number of articles that are created or deleted every day it pays to have a sophisticated system in place for processing them!) Olaf Davis (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I left a response on my talk page, by the way. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have seen your request for help on my talk page, and I will try to explain the reasons for the proposed deletion. I hope this will help to clarify matters. I can find no evidence that "Family Movement" is a recognised concept in itself: the article seems to be essentially a synthesis of different ideas to form a whole which does not appear in any of the sources cited. Making such a synthesis to create an article on a subject which has not previously received significant coverage is contrary to Wikipedia policy, as constituting "original research". We accept articles only on existing subjects which have received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Please note that it is not sufficient for the individual parts to have received coverage: the overall topic must have received such coverage. I suggest reading Wikipedia:No original research for clarification of this. If you have not already done so you should also read the notability guidelines.

If there is substantial coverage of the concept of the "Family Movement" as a recognised concept then please add references to that coverage: this will then establish that the subject warrants a Wikipedia article. If, however, you have simply assembled information from different sources on various movements and organisations which have a common theme, but "Family Movement" as such is not a recognised concept, then the topic is not notable by Wikipedia's criteria, and no amount of editing of the article will alter that fact.

I hope that my remarks have been helpful. Please feel welcome to contact me via my talk page if you have any further questions about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have good news, have found many different academic journals that reference the Family Movement to meet the notability guidelines. I have read through the guidelines more closely and would like to make sure that this issue is resolved so we can focus on the style. Since I am new to Wikipedia, I thought I'd ask you what is the best way to present notability type references? Should the journals just be tagged in the Reference section like any other link and be attached to the first mention of Family Movement? Or should the articles be listed in External Links as the topics of the articles themselves are not necessarily discussing the Family Movement itself? Your feedback is appreciated and thanks for clarifying these rules for me, it has helped us to find more information on the subject that we were unaware of. Stefanlorimer (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You should add them to the references section. If an article is supporting a particular statement in the article then cite it after that statement. Otherwise just cite them anywhere that seems appropriate - near the beginning is fine - and other editors can rearrange them if they think it's helpful.

Not that a journal article simply referring to the movement doesn't necessary help confer notability - that requires significant coverage. What constitutes significant is obviously a bit subjective, but it basically means the source has to discuss the movement itself in some depth and not just mention it in passing. But add the sources to the article and we can see if they qualify; hopefully they will. Thanks for being constructive about the article's threatened deletion. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)