Talk:Families Anonymous

References

I have added the major publications and Journal references to assist the notability and verification process. MM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exmayor (talk • contribs) 15:41, March 10, 2009 (UTC)

These don't assist in determining notability. The journal articles appear to cover the subject matter that FA is concerned with, but don't provide notable coverage of FA itself. Passing mentions don't count.

If the article doesn't get any verifiable, reliable third party sources that provide coverage of this organization, this article will be proposed for deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

An encyclopedic article based on reliable sources could be written on this group, when the topic came up before I did some research. But at this point I would support it's deletion. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles are being added. We are on a learning curve to comply with style requirements. Exmayor (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much the style that I'm concerned with as it is the content. With a few hours at the library you could get some peer-reviewed sources to base this article on. The problem is that, no matter how many of these you list, the article isn't encyclopedic until the information contained in it is based on those sources. When you write wikipedia articles on organizations like this you want to start with the reliable sources first, self-published sources are more to put a finer point on topics not covered well by the peer-reviewed sources. Most of what's in this article now sounds like something you'd read in a brochure about the group or on it's website. Wikipedia is not your website, and is not for promotion.

If you read most of the other articles on twelve-step groups, like the OA article, you'll see information is followed by footnotes and most of those footnotes are citing peer-reviewed sources. In the OA article there's 13 footnotes to self-published sources and 28 to reliable sources. If you can get to the point where 70% of this article is cited information from several peer-reviewed sources, it will most certainly avoid deletion.

This is especially important as it sounds an awful lot like you may have ties to this group which constitutes a conflict of interest. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I do have ties to this group. There is no conflict of interest since it is everyone's interest to have a compliant, factually based, verifiable article for posting. In as much as the original poster is currently unable to respond to the issues raised, the matter has been brought to my attention. The intent is to improve the post,so as to make it compliant with the style requirements. Exmayor (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing an article about a group with whom you have ties is the definition of conflict of interest on Wikipedia. Yes, you have a conflict of interest. There isn't anything wrong with that as long as you're open about it. Your conflict of interest simply means that you need to exercise great caution with your edits. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for further guidance.

You should be less concerned with "style requirements" and more concerned with content. Specifically, you should focus your energy on addressing the top 3 issues listed in the tag at the top of the article; namely the lack of 3rd-party sources, the lack of evidence of notability, and the tone of advertising. Fix up those things, and the style issues can be worked by others. Right now I'm not motivated to make stylistic improvements because, to me, this article looks like a candidate for deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

I should retract what I said earlier in regard to the number of peer-reviewed sources documenting FA. While there are hundreds of Google Scholar hits, very few of them do more the mention the organization in a list of similar groups, and there are a lot of "false positives" (articles that contain a string "families anonymous" but are not about the organization). I'd say that this organization is only barely notable enough for a Wikipedia article--just barely. I should also say that my understanding of the Portuguese paper comes from a reading an English version generated with Google Translate. I'm pretty confident that I understand it, but it is possible concepts and nuances were lost in the translation. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Danielle finlay and my daughter paisley

We are struggling I went sharps 5 years ago I’m 4 years clean due to my past it’s affected my daughter she is now cutting herself and it’s raised concerns for me as her mum to get suppor, I see you on the stage on Saturday and was powerful to see what help and things you do and I am begging now for help! I have eupd and have recently had an episode 4 weeks ago which caused me to have hallucinations and I’m still trying my best to chase appointments brain scans ext My number is 07960275018 Everyone calls me danni and I would like any help given please x 86.22.136.161 (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)