`  ==Regarding NACER.org== My comments are posted on the talk page for NACER. I am uninitiated as to the academic nuances of Wikipedia - perhaps, constructively, if you feel the page is lacking, you might assist in modifying the composition? NACER.org is a wonderful entity, doing very good work. Do you have animals? Do you understand much about contemporary Mayan culture? Are you aware of animal welfare issues in Mexico? Perhaps in visiting the website, you might then see for yourself that the organization is not commercial in any way - has a mission of mercy and compassion, and is not using Wikipedia to solicit anything, but to contribute to the knowledge base of the public.  This page is NOT blatant advertizing - nacer.org is NOT a business as such - it is a legitimate charitable organization doing groundbreaking work in it's target region. The facts of the article are verifiable. The conditions in Mexico for animal welfare are very similar to those from the turn of the last century in the US - many animals are subjected to the harshest forms of cruelty, and there is little recognition for the suffering they endure. The efforts of the government there have been half-hearted at best. Poverty and cultural limitations are at the root of this problem, as throughout the third world. NACER is among a small handful of groups that are trying to effect change in the conditions, much as there was a movement in England and the US that brought into being the ASPCA, and other such groups.  This article is intended as *EDUCATIONAL* and informative - not SPAM! There are many references to many charitable organizations, ie: Red Cross, etc. While NACER is not as prominent, it still has a legitimate place in the public consciousness, and should remain on Wikipedia for this and many other valid reasons. Thanks  zoundman  :Whether it's commercial or not is not relevant. The problem is with the article being both an unreferenced, uncritical commentary as well as a random semi-related link dump. Both of these are categorized, in my understanding of the issue, under the somewhat harsh term ``spam``, hence the tag. I encourage you to read Wikipedia policy, especially WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability. See WP:EL to get an idea of which external links are appropriate.   :Please note that the tag is not related to notability, but if the article was not qualified for that tag, notability would still be a question. You have not specifically cited any references to establish the charity's notability. For organizations, you generally will need to cite secondary sources, such as notable magazines featuring articles on your charity.     I'm sorry Darkbane, but you appear not to have followed many of the links, nor to have attempted a simple google search under our name, which brings up a first ranking, and many unrelated (outside) pages with discussion pointing to the organization as a source of expertise and experience in the field of animal welfare in our target region. If I cite articles such as The Sun Sentinal, or feature stories on KDVR & KUSA Television, would you feel these lend 'notability'?  Why would you not delete the Red Cross's article for also containing a direct link to their organization?  The registered name of the organization with the US IRS, and the State of incorporation is 'NACER.org' - not simply 'NACER'.  While it may be intellectually satisfying to you and others to rigourously apply arcane standards and delete accordingly, if you were to have followed the links and discovered for yourself the commpassionate nature of the work, then I would suggest you'd find the article more than worthy of existing for public purview, and assist rather than impede. Of course if you think that the rampant starvation and wholesale electrocution and drowning of millions of innocent animals are unworthy of people's time and attention, then impede away, And I'll continue to repost. Thanks,  zoundman  :I am not the one who deleted your article, I merely placed the speedy deletion tag. An admin made the final decision. Therefore the correct place to raise your concerns is with the admin who deleted your article.   :Recreating the article verbatim ad-infinitum is bad practice and will probably eventually get you banned. I highly recommend you rewrite the article from scratch, keeping in mind the links to policy I mentioned above. A neutral, well-referenced article that does not list fifty links to unrelated subjects will probably not get a speedy tag from anyone.   :   : With regard to secondary sources, that's exactly what you should do. Place references in appropriate places in the article, and add a reference section at the bottom. That will establish some sort of notability and prevent anyone from placing a CSD A7 speedy tag. Also, once again, please do read WP:EL. If you really do need to include every one of those links, there should be a reason for every one of them, maybe as a citation within the article itself.    :I checked the deletion log right now, and your article was deleted five times, by three different administrators. Four of them for notability criteria. Therefore, it would be prudent to rewrite it with citing secondary sources (established print and online media would be good in my understanding) and keeping the other policies in mind. They're not that arcane, really. As for the links, another option is placing that link collection on the Nacer.org site and only providing the link to the official homepage on the article.    == Re NACER.org ==  Thanks for those suggestions - I'll try to apply them constructively.  zoundman  == Princess Resurrection ==  I have an idea. I'll make an image consisting of those pictures, store it on imageshack then reference to it. I saw articles with those kind of references before so it should be ok I think. -   :I'm not so sure if that'll be okay. I know I added those fact tags originally, but I won't add them anymore. As I am not completely convinced of my own argument either, let's just leave it like it is for now, I guess. I'll try to think about how to formulate that section a bit more assertively so that it doesn't look like OR, since there are some such comparisons out there, to some degree.    == NACER (again) ==  Have read and re-read the text, and am a bit stuck on the concept of language 'neutrality'... while the text does seem 'friendly' toward the subject, on reading, it is entirely factual, and the org's website has extensive supporting material to document the statements. Any suggestions (?) as I seem to either have limited objectivity here, or have somehow neglected to substantiate things strongly enough... Sorry for being such a neophyte, but we all have our beginnings )  Thanks again, and regrets for my presumptions in earlier comments,   zoundman  :No problem, I am an inexperienced editor myself but I will try my best to help. I've cleaned up the article a bit already with regards to neutrality, but more can be done. As you say, the text seems ``friendly`` toward the subject. Even if everything in the article is true, if you write it in a tone of voice that is biased towards the subject (as you inevitably will at first, since you care a lot about the mission of NACER.org), and at the same time do not provide reliable, independent, secondary sources, it's no longer encyclopedic.   :For instance, one of your previous iterations had the line ``tremendous suffering of the animals in Mexico``. I'm sure it's true, but you need to bring out published facts and figures to back it up, otherwise it's an opinion.  :Someone coming from the outside to your article cannot trace your ``long-standing advocacy of education``. That's why we rely on secondary sources (independent meaning not affiliated with you) to back up such claims.   :The places I marked with citation needed are some of the places where I think neutrality could be asserted by inserting citations. The first two of those could probably be verified from articles in local newspapers.   :I added one citation, albeit not a very good one because it's an article written by your organization and hence not independent, but the only citation I could find. I was hoping that would give you some ideas for citations.   :There is still the notability tag, which someone else has placed, and which needs to be addressed by providing those secondary sources. Newspaper articles are good for this, especially if the newspaper is noteworthy and/or the coverage extensive (as in, more than one line or a small box in the corner of the help wanted page). You did mention some other sources available before, so you should add those as citations to specific statements within the article.    == Capitalization ==  Generally, most nouns and verbs in titles are capitalized. For example: Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. -[[User:Juansidious|Juansid