Talk:Ripple Effect Project

Name confusion issues

What is the difference/connection between the website created by a 17 year old in 2010 currently written about in the article and the larger project started in 2009 detailed here? Are these one in the same? Or did the website just copy the name and possibly create confusion? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I am having difficulty figuring out if these are connected or not. But I am turning up a lot of reliable sources on the Acumen/IDEO project. Is the Texas start-up a spin-off of that? I am not able to locate any reliable independent coverage of the Texas portion of this, with the exception of a mention in congress. Barring the discovery of reliable independent secondary sources, I think we perhaps should delete that portion as it does not appear to be notable on its own. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

These are completely separate entities. The Ripple Effect created by the 17 year old is a business, whereas The Ripple Effect started in 2009 is a non-profit for specific water crisis related projects in both Kenya and India. The name similarities are strictly coincidental. Nicokroeker (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, then it seems like there is not sufficient reliable source coverage for the business of the 17 year old. I'll go ahead and remove that from the article for now. If sufficient reliable source coverage can turn up then perhaps that material should have a separate article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The coverage of the 17 year old's business was the initial intention of the article. Furthermore, in response to your claim stating there is not sufficient reliable source coverage, the article cites an Extension of Remarks made by Congressman Ted Poe on the house floor. If that is not considered a credible source please enlighten me on what actually constitutes credibility. Nicokroeker (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That was extremely confusing as they have the same name and have the same goal, and the larger project partners with small businesses and organizations in multiple countries. Being mentioned by your Congressman is wonderful for you. Congratulations! But that mention would need to be covered in a secondary source to be considered notable. So if you can turn up news coverage of that mention, or other general news coverage of your company, then you can provide those links to establish the need for such an article about your company. Here are some links you may want to read about both notability and reliable sources: reliable sources, notability. You also should review conflict of interest guidelines.ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Understandable that you would experience confusion regarding this topic. Would this reference be constituted as a secondary source? Nicokroeker (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Generally since it appears to just be a copy of the text that is not a secondary independent source - just a duplicate copy of it. What you need to locate is a news story covering it by an independent news organization, etc. Barring that, it just isn't yet notable. But all of that said, please keep in mind the conflict of interest guidelines, and avoid editing articles related to you directly. You should request other editors to make those edits via talk pages. I'm happy to provide that service to you if you turn up the reliable source coverage and can highlight it here. I'll be happy to create a separate article for your company if you can find such significant reliable source coverage. But please do not do it yourself, ok? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand completely and will refrain from editing pages that violate conflict of interest guidelines. My main concern, however, lies in the fact that according to you, a news station or news service provides a more credible secondary source than the Library of Congress. Are you making this claim specifically because it is my only objective source, and the easiest way to discredit my article is to disqualify the Extensions of Remarks completely? -or- Do you legitimately have an issue with the credibility of the speech given by Representative Ted Poe, and thus using it as a citation goes against what you believe Wikipedia stands for? Please advise. Nicokroeker (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging you understand the conflict of interest guidelines. I think you may have some confusion as to what the purpose of a secondary reliable source is. Nobody is arguing that the Congressman made those remarks in the extension of remarks. That is wonderful for you and your business. But if that, and copies of that which routinely are placed into the library of congress verbatim, is the only public mention of your business, then it appears that it may be WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article on your business. To have an article, a business needs to have significant (meaning multiple and long lasting) reliable secondary source coverage. If you can provide other sources that cover your business, you may be able to satisfy WP:GNG criteria. I encourage you at this point to focus on your business, and then in time if it continues to grow and get coverage there will be enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish an article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)