Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your bold move of David G. Armstrong has been reverted because an editor has found it to be controversial. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves, a move request must be placed on the article's talk page, and the request be open for discussion for seven days, "if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested". If you believe that this move is appropriate, please initiate such a discussion to form the appropriate consensus. Again, please note that moving a page with a longstanding title and/or a large number of incoming links is more likely to be considered controversial, and may be contested. Note that such consensus is particularly required before moving a title with incoming links in order to create a disambiguation page at that title. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to European Wound Management Association. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So there should be a discussion before any edit in page titles? Mk1870 (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:American Limb Preservation Society (ALPS), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Jdcomix (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. That doesn't mean you can write what you like, you must follow the guidance below:

• you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls

• Your text has no references of any kind. I notice that you edited EWMA, that's a dreadful model, with no proper refs and a promotional tone. You have to have proper refs independent of the organisation, whereas your text seems to be just quoting what they say about themselves.

• The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

1. significant coverage in
2. independent,
3. multiple,
4. reliable,
5. secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability. There is little factual in your text about your organisation, not even a physical location. To show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees and members, management structure, funding or expenditure. As it stands, there is absolutely nothing to support notability.

• You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.

• Your text is almost fact-free promo for the organisation The society strives... They do this by continuously educating the future generation of clinicians and scientists...and provide valuable resources. The objectives of ALPS include fostering networking among clinicians and scientists, mentorship and raising awareness about limb preservation... ALPS reaches its objectives... I notice that it's all objectives, no real facts supported by independent third-party source

• There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.

• Especially when they are spamlinks to your organisation

• You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

• I didn't check

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. As I said, there is nothing that you have written that even allows an assessment of whether it is notable. Rather than try to salvage a lost cause, better to find genuine independent references for real facts and start from scratch Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]