Regarding NACERorg 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 NACERorg 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  nacerorg is NOT a business as such  it is a legitimate charitable organization doing groundbreaking work in its 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 halfhearted 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 its commercial or not is not relevant The problem is with the article being both an unreferenced uncritical commentary as well as a random semirelated 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 WPNPOV and WPVerifiability See WPEL 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 charitys notability For organizations you generally will need to cite secondary sources such as notable magazines featuring articles on your charity     Im 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 Crosss 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 NACERorg  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 youd 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 peoples time and attention then impede away And Ill 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 adinfinitum 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 wellreferenced article that does not list fifty links to unrelated subjects will probably not get a speedy tag from anyone       With regard to secondary sources thats 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 A speedy tag Also once again please do read WPEL 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 Theyre not that arcane really As for the links another option is placing that link collection on the Nacerorg site and only providing the link to the official homepage on the article     Re NACERorg   Thanks for those suggestions  Ill try to apply them constructively  zoundman   Princess Resurrection   I have an idea Ill 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    Im not so sure if thatll be okay I know I added those fact tags originally but I wont add them anymore As I am not completely convinced of my own argument either lets just leave it like it is for now I guess Ill try to think about how to formulate that section a bit more assertively so that it doesnt look like OR since there are some such comparisons out there to some degree     NACER again   Have read and reread 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 orgs 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 Ive 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 NACERorg and at the same time do not provide reliable independent secondary sources its no longer encyclopedic   For instance one of your previous iterations had the line tremendous suffering of the animals in Mexico Im sure its true but you need to bring out published facts and figures to back it up otherwise its an opinion  Someone coming from the outside to your article cannot trace your longstanding advocacy of education Thats 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 its 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 andor 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 UserJuansidiousJuansid