Talk:Mad Science

message: If anyone would like to offer their help in writing this article that would be greatly appreciated. I do in fact work for Mad Science, however my intention is not to create an ad for this company, simply and overview of the buisness, its history and operations. Similar to any other company wiki found on this encyclopedia.
Thank you, 
--Timthom2 (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This company shows no indication of notability.  Prodding it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please define notability in your own words. Seems to me like it depends on your point of view. This company has been in operation for over 20 years and has a proven track record or helping children in the field of science. It science programing is proven to improve childrens test scores in science. Is that not worth notability. I know that I cannot base an argument on other articles in this encyclopedia, but how can you say any company deserves notability so why are they graced with articles? I would appreciate more than a one line answer. I have tried my best to follow the rules, disclose everything, post on the conflict of interest page. Please give some guidance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timthom2 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the one who added the prod, and I honestly haven't looked closely at this article yet (saw a mention at the COI noticeboard, so came over to glance at it).  But for reference, Wikipedia has a guideline which defines notability of organizations at WP:ORG.  If you can demonstrate how this company meets the threshold defined within that guideline, that would help. --67.183.232.99 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has a preponderance of notability guidelines for various types of thing however the best place to start would be WP:GNG.  The reason that this company appears not to be notable is because all references on the article are either ad-copy or primary source material.  Notability is established by substantial coverage in independent reliable sources.Simonm223 (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I am in the process of adding more sources and expanding the article. Although some of the sources run through the Mad Science web site, they are from notable secondary sources such as The Globe and Mail, a major Canadian newspaper. Over the next week I will continue to source and make sure that the notability is proven. Any other guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time!--Timthom2 (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To confirm notability reference the actual articles in the Globe and not the copies on your website.  If the articles are puff pieces the article may still be subject to AfD discussion and potential deletion.Simonm223 (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am familiar with this company, they are affiliated with NASA, they offer great educational programs to kids. I added a reference  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.7.140 (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Promotional materials don't constitute independent second parties.Simonm223 (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Now satisfied this company meets WP:N.Simonm223 (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to everyone for your help and guidance!--Timthom2 (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROD 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mad Science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713142907/http://media.kennedyspacecenter.com/press_kits_detail.cfm?presskit_id=3&item_id=36&press_section_id=2604 to http://media.kennedyspacecenter.com/press_kits_detail.cfm?presskit_id=3&item_id=36&press_section_id=2604
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mad Science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612232941/http://madscience.org/files/web/press/20031216profit2.pdf to http://www.madscience.org/files/web/press/20031216profit2.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I placed a COI notice on this page because User:Ronnster007 appears to be connected with Mad Science, and introduced a number of issues, including copied-and-pasted text, promotional messaging and incorrectly formatted references. I've addressed many of these issues, and plan to review the External links section for potential inclusion as proper references, as well as additional review on the NASA section to confirm the timeline, program names, etc. are correct. Unless anyone has other concerns with the article, I'll remove the notice once I (or another user) addresses those two items. POLITANVM talk 01:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the notice. The article has room for improvement, but I believe it is correctly referenced and sufficiently NPOV. POLITANVM talk 13:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI Notice