Hello Dennis.

I saw that the article I submitted has been flagged for deletion and that the reason is because the links are "blogs, don't mention or imply them by name, or are unreliable in some other way".

In response to the comment, I cleaned up the links following the example of other already-existing Wikipedia articles. While some of the links are blogs, we've tried to ensure that they are reputable and larger-scale blogs, such as TreeHugger and Mother Nature Network (both have Wikipedia articles written about them). The external links are to magazine articles in published/printed magazines such as Natural Life magazine (a Canadian published periodical that has been around since 1976), or to reputable international news websites such as Toronto Star, Sapo.pt and OnAir24.gr.

Would you please let me know if there is any other action I can take to keep the article on Wikipedia? I've seen articles published with less information or incorrectly cited references, so any advice/tips/ideas/suggestions you could provide to help clarify is greatly appreciated.

Many thanks and Happy Holidays!

98.218.238.168 (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to create an entry for this website/company (ReUse Connection) roughly two years ago and did not succeed for similar reasons as stated here. While building our fan base on Facebook, I have held off reapplying for consideration by Wikipedia. In the interim, we have incorporated, we have successfully obtained trademarks for our logo/brand, and numerous people have reached out to us from around the world, many of them wanting to write articles about our company and website. Far from being an advertisement, ReUse Connection is a website with over 25 people from 17 countries working on it in some capacity. The actual website is currently under beta test and expects to launch in early 2012. I have read through wikipedia's documentation, and I am not sure which criteria ReUSe Connection still fails to meet. As the Founder and CEO, I am not sure if my vote counts, but I propose that this entry be accepted. My 2 cents. . . Ian

Ianmoise (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That might be the problem. You are trying to start an article for your company on Wikipedia. Please read WP:COI. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, Thanks very much for your feedback. I do understand that I have a conflict of interest (though I did not understand that guideline when I tried to create the page previously). In this case, Gina, a fan of our idea, website, and Facebook page, actually asked me whether we had a Wikipedia page. When I told her about my past effort, she said she was interested in creating the page for the site. I agreed to help her with the references I had. At the end, if the website does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion, it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Thanks again for your feedback. Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianmoise (talk • contribs) 22:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Dennis,

Thanks for your response and for the info/links provided, and for helping me try to get this article approved. I really appreciate it!

Given the guidance you have given, I really feel like the ReUse Connection article is a valid one for Wikipedia, but that I had not yet fully annotated the references. I have tried to address each section of the the policy on notability for organizations below and again, will really appreciate any additional feedback you have.

In the policy, it states that “An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources… All content must be verifiable…”

1. Significant coverage: According to (WP:GNG), significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. -- In the articles I included as references, ReUse Connection is the main subject.

2. Reliability of sources:

a. Moorhouse, Ellen (2010). Trash Talk: Are those old videos just garbage?. yourhome.caYourhome.ca/ (A Toronto Star newspaper blog).

Ellen Moorhouse was Editor in various departments of the Toronto Star, from October 1983 to December 2004 (21 years 3 months). During this time her various responsibilities, included: assistant business editor responsible for the Sunday business section; editorial board editor responsible for op-ed and editorial pages in the Saturday and Sunday Star, and real estate editor in charge of two weekly real estate sections. She has been writing the “Trash Talk” column for the Toronto Star’s ‘yourhome.ca’ blog since approximately April 2009 (oldest Trash Talk article I found: http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/columnsblogs/article/622811--trash-talk-don-t-chuck-it-use-it).

I’m still waiting to get a response back from the editor of the blog regarding the Toronto News’s editorial control over yourhome.ca (the blog Ellen Moorhouse posts her “Trash Talk” column on).

b. Wasson, Julia (2010). ReUse Connection – Ideas for Repurposing, Freely Shared. Blue Planet Green Living

Julia Wasson has a distinguished career in marketing, publishing, writing, and editing. But without going into details on her career, I found that she and Blue Planet Green Living have already been cited as a refernce for a Wikipedia article. See reference #1 at: Harvard "Pete" Palmer, Jr. ("Donate Vehicle—Help Charity—Get Tax Deduction," www.blueplanetgreenliving.com, November 11, 2009, by Julia Wasson).

c. Tottleben, Cy (2010). The ReUse Connection: Keeping material out of the landfill. Mother Nature Network.

Cy Tottleben, according to MNN.com (a blog that has its own Wikipedia page - (Mother Nature Network), graduated from Indiana University with a BA in history. Cy has spent the past 20 years educating others on the three R’s — reusing, reducing and recycling, which has earned her the nickname of "The Crazy Recycling Lady." Her current project is affecting change in her business by greening her store and spreading these practices throughout the corporation. (See: http://www.mnn.com/users/ctottleben).

d. Grover, Sami (2010). [Reuse Community Takes Facebook By Storm - With More to Come]. TreeHugger.

Treehugger is the number 1 environmental blog on the web and has a Wikipedia article (TreeHugger). Sami Grover has been a writer for TreeHugger since 2007. He has worked in academic publishing, specializing in issues related to sustainability. He has been published in Permaculture Magazine. Sami is the co-creative director at The Change Creation. (See: http://www.treehugger.com/author/sami-grover/). :Other publications by Sami Grover include: (2007). Rob Hopkins on Transition Culture, Positive News, and others listed on http://planetgreen.discovery.com/author/sami-grover/.

3. Independence of sources: I read this to mean that NONE of the sources have a significant connection to ReUse Connection and therefore are able to describe it from a disinterested perspective. I am not sure there is really any way to ever prove this, but from what I know, ReUse Connection is a company run by the Founder and his family, with the help of volunteers in various countries (who mainly help with programming, website design, translations and tweeting). What I can say from my personal experience is that I am originally from Panama, have lived in Argentina, and now work at the World Bank's HQ, and many of my colleagues and friends with whom I have shared the site in each of these three places have absolutely loved it.

4. Secondary sources: The question of whether articles are secondary sources or not is a bit confusing to me as there seems to be a grey area. When I look up “secondary sources” on Wikipedia, it even says, “Primary and secondary are relative terms, and some sources may be classified as primary or secondary, depending on how it is used”. I understand that secondary sources have some level of analysis in them, beyond just reporting what happened.

a. Several of the sources noted above do have analysis:

• Julia Wasson’s Blue Planet Green Living article is an interview she did with the Founder based on research she did on her own.
• Sami Grover’s article reports on ReUse Connection by tying it to another article he wrote on reuse and hoarding -- (2010). When Does Reuse Become Hoarding?). TreeHugger.com.

• Ellen Moorhouse’ article is about the website and analyzes how it fits into the bigger waste management picture that includes municipalities and Goodwill.

b. There are a number of other ways people have written about ReUse Connection for different purposes, and I am not sure whether they pass as secondary sources. It seems many of them do include some level of analysis:

• People writing about how ReUse Connection has helped their business because of what they posted on the site.
• A brief blog entry noting that ReUse Connection “Seems to be where all the action and idea sharing is happening.”
• People writing about ideas they obtained from ReUse Connection and are now implementing.
• Several interviews with the Founder – one on Fox Radio, one on Colombian radio.
• Someone inputing an entry for ReUse Connection on a site that looks to be similar to Wikipedia called P2P Foundation (See (http://p2pfoundation.net/ReUse_Connection)).

5. Verifiable: I believe that the links I provided are valid to meet the verifiable criteria as explained. For the most part, they are links to the original article posted so it would be easy to just click on each link to view it.

I hope that some of this further detail can clarify the validity of the references I provided earlier. I would very much appreciate any further feedback as to whether the article is a reasonable contribution to Wikipedia or if there’s any additional info/clarification you need from me. Finally, would it help if other people added their ideas to the discussion board?

Thanks again for all your help!

Cheers, Ginalizardi (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you reverted my "blanking" of the talk page for ReUse Connection. Sorry for the mistake and many thanks for the correction.

On a separate note, I saw on the View History page for the article that you had added the following: "Using a wiki as an external link is improper in this context. Most of these ext. links are in fact improper. This shouldnt be just a list of links that mention them". I have a couple confusions on this comment:

1. I happened to stumble upon the comment while looking at the view history just out of curiousity... but can you please let me know why this comment did not appear on the discussion page?

2. When you say that "Using a wiki as an external link is improper", does that mean that it's ok to use them in the "References" section, but just not in the list of "External Links" section?

3. Each and every external link opens an article or interview where ReUse Connection is the main subject -- would you please let me know what is improper about the links?

Thank you and Happy New Year!

Ginalizardi (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. It wasn't on a talk page, it was in the "summary" portion when I made the edit. It is visible in the article history. The summary is a fine place to offer a rationale for an edit if it can be summed up quickly.

• 2. You can't use any Wiki, including Wikipedia, as a "reference". It doesn't pass WP:RS. In other words, you can link to other wikipedia articles, but you can't use Wikipedia articles to "prove" a fact. This is because it is written by you and me, not a vetted newspaper or other professionally edited site. Important facts must be verifiable using independent sources that are reliable. Reading those guidelines should clear it up. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]