Talk:European Mentoring and Coaching Council

Development discussion

I have added more citations - for those of us in the coaching and mentorng professions, it is well known that the EMCC is one of the world's leading 2-3 bodies/associations in the field. The strongest proof of this being that the European Union recognises the EMCC (along with the US-based International Coach Federation) as the lead bodies in terms of accepting that the coaching and mentoring profession (across EU countries) is a self-regulated profession. Citations of this are given in the draft. In addition the EMCC is the leading or one or two leading regulatary body/association across all of the largest EEU countries e.g. Netherland, Germany, Greece - this is eveidenced by googling the EMCC in google news (in the local language). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.62.85.44 (talk • contribs)

I have moved this back to draft namespace as I don't believe that it has surpassed the requirement that SwisterTwister set for its readiness. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I am one of this organisation's 5,000 plus members. I have been a member since its creation over 15 years ago and am now a retired business coach. I do not quite understand why the importance/relevance/notability is hard to confirm of the EMCC. It is not-for-profit Europe-wide body which leads the field of coaching and mentoring in Europe and is one of the world's largest such bodies. The creators of this page seem to show this with a range of citations. Could you review again and you will see that the citations are not all press releases or trivial mentions. As far as I know the EMCC has a small volunteer support staff and its media coverage is normally confined to the related HR industry - you see citations in this regards e.g. from the UK's leading HR magazine (Personnel Today) and also the UK's Chartered Institute of Personnel Development ("CIPD").SwisterTwister? 202.188.143.138 (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I have edited the page and added more references to help demonstrate the importance of this oversight not for profit body in its field of coaching and mentoring.

Notability citations have been added - could an editor please review and move this page from being a Draft to a page in its own right?185.62.85.43 (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

While it might seem that having an article approved for inclusion in Wikipedia is all about having lots of references for things, in reality it can be counter-productive to have lots of references - see Wikipedia:Citation overkill. That applies in this case, as the reviewer has to try to establish notability not by the author pleading the case on the talk page but by an objective assessment of all of the references provided, which because there are so many becomes a job that takes maybe a couple of hours. Trying to find the two or three key references that are from independent, reliable sources and provide significant coverage becomes like finding a needle in a haystack.

Please remember that while the EMCC might be a very important body within the realm of coaching and mentoring, that doesn't in itself make it sufficiently notable to warrant an encyclopedia article about it. One of the challenges that Wikipedia has is that it is such an important resource that PR people, SEO people, and marketeers desperately want there to be an article about their company, organisation or product, and if Wikipedia becomes just a place for companies to talk about themselves this diminishes the value of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. So, the reviewers of draft pages perform an essential role in filtering out content that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The test that this article must pass is that reliable independent sources such as national newspapers or academic journals must have, at their own initiative (not as a paid placement or as the result of a press release) written significant coverage about the organisation (not about coaching and mentoring in general). It would help if you would highlight here on the talk page the three or four references that you think best meet that criteria. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Notability

Evidence of notability in cited sources: [1], [2], [3]. ~Kvng (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)