Talk:National Comprehensive Cancer Network

message: Can someone please help edit out advertising language
:I'm not sure it can be done.  Yes, it's been improved recently... but it may not be possible to reach the goal.  I'd really like to know why the person who wrote most of it thinks it's notable enough to justify a page, instead of half a sentence in some other article. WhatamIdoing 16:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um. I'd take the IP address more seriously if it identified itself. This page amounts to "we haz web sight." I actually WENT to the web site... it is very generic and requires registration. It smells spammy. I started to sign up anyway just to prove it was spam, but they want WAY too much information. Address as a required field? Cough. NOT. Elinruby (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did look at the deletion discussion, because really, the page cries out for deletion. I do see that they are frequently cited. I can only think that the material for providers must be better than the public website, but I can't get excited enough about them to investigate further. They can't be all THAT notable. The page has been essentially untouched for four years. I submit that the fact that they exist does not entitle them to a wikipedia page. 75.149.44.10 (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The NCCN is a huge deal and it deserves a bigger page. The NCCN Guidelines, as another poster stated, are the go-to standard for cancer care. There is nothing "spammy" whatsoever about the NCCN. I am a radiation oncologist in a small town and I serve on the hospital's cancer committee. We are currently conducting quality control reviews and our reference for the proper work up and mgmt of cancer patients is the set of NCCN Guidelines. The guidelines themselves are based on the most up-to-date scientific literature, and as such the guidelines are continually updated. It is understandable that typical Wikipedia editors are unaware of the NCCN since it is a scientific and professional non-profit group operating beyond the scope of a people not engaged in cancer research or patient care. However, your ignorance does not carry  the weight of authority.BAW (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising

message: :Image:Nccn 301 k circle R.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Nccn 301 k circle R.jpg

message: This content needs to be paraphrased Oceanflynn (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Board of directors