User talk:Ajkessel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Two Dickinson Street Co-op

A tag has been placed on Two Dickinson Street Co-op, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article is a repost of either already posted material, or of material that was previously deleted under Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. If you can indicate how Two Dickinson Street Co-op is different from all other articles, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}}, and also put a note on Talk:Two Dickinson Street Co-op saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions.Diez2 14:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two Dickinson Street Co-op

A tag has been placed on Two Dickinson Street Co-op, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article is a repost of either already posted material, or of material that was previously deleted under Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. If you can indicate how Two Dickinson Street Co-op is different from all other articles, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}}, and also put a note on Talk:Two Dickinson Street Co-op saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions.Diez2 14:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Diez2 14:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This warning has been placed improperly. No other warnings have been given, and the edits by Ajkessel appear to be in good faith. dcandeto 16:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read up on the nobability guidelines in order to have a notable article. Posting exactly what the club does from day to day isn't notable. Maybe if you posted some history about the club, then it would be notable. Diez2 16:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you will find it possible to write a verifiable article on 2 Dickinson that satisfies notability requirements. You are welcome to try, but I think the effort doomed. It has no significance I can think of outside of Princeton, and frankly, it isn't that significant even on campus. Of course, I am doubtful about whether the eating clubs should have their own articles. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
What's the protocol here? Do I respond on your page or on this one? I've posted a response on your page for now. Ajkessel 21:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
One can do it either way. If I respond on your page and you respond on mine, we each get notified, but it is harder for others to follow the argument, assuming they care. If we keep the thread on one page, then one of us has to watch the other's page, but third parties can view the conversation as a whole.
Procedurally, a speedy deletion differs from a proposed deletion. {{prod}} is a request for unanimous consent for deletion without discussion, so a single objection is decisive. {{db-group}} is an request for an administrator to make a ruling that the article is out of bounds, while {{holdon}} is a request to the administrator to wait, which he/she is not obliged to honor. In this case, the rule is that the article must make a reasonable case for notability. Wikipedia gets so many people trying to boost their organization (we call them vanity articles) that we need to be pretty strict about them.
There is an appeal process, called deletion review. It resembles a legal appeal in that the merits of the underlying deletion are not relevant, only the procedural question of how. In the case of a speedy deletion, that's not much of a distinction, since only specific reasons qualify.
I don't find the "X has an article so why not Y" argument very persuasive. Others do. My reasoning is that if X shouldn't have an article, we don't generally improve Wikipedia by also having an article on Y. Generally, we would be better off deleting X. BTW, any registered Wikipedian may nominate for deletion, so if you honestly feel those articles should go, you have a remedy.
Some thoughts that may be helpful. I'm not sure if A Princeton Companion would pass muster as a reliable source or not, but that might be a place to start. Are you near campus? You might also try looking in the archives to see if Freddie Fox has something on the subject. Showing influence beyond campus will probably be vital. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks -- I am not near campus and haven't been there for a long time. In the deleted talk pgae for the entry, there were references to off-campus publications. I believe there was a contentious history of the creation of 2D in the 1970's that would be covered in the entry. 2D also played an important part in the Princeton Living Wage campaign that was in the national news. I do think there are arguments for preserving the entry beyond its equivalence in importance to the Eating clubs that are covered, but I would like to request at least a few days to build up the entry. I had a {{holdon}} request on the earlier revision, which was marked for speedy deletion, but an administrator removed both the holdon tag and the speedy deletion tag, noting that it was not an appropriate candidate for speedy deletion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajkessel (talk • contribs)
It is polite and helpful to always sign, even on your own talk page. You have three options I can see, depending on your tolerance for procedure.
  1. Request deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. The problem with this is that all the sources were Princeton-related sources, which look to an outside like self-promotion. Neither the Daily Princetonian nor PAW look like third-party independent sources -- remember that most campus newspapers and alumni rags are mere house organs.
  2. Request undeletion to user space at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. State your belief that you can make a policy-conforming article in time. The article will be named something like User:Ajkessel/Two Dickinson. Once you have improved it, note clearly on the talk page that this is new and improved content, not the same content previously deleted, then move it back to the title you want.
  3. Start from scratch.
I hope this helps. Good luck. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Put in your keep argument

Any editor, including someone who worked on the article, is more than welcome to comment on AFD. While only administrators can delete, any editor, can nominate to delete and offer an opinion on any open debate. (We don't call them votes, because the closing admin is supposed to judge the relative merits of arguments as well as looking at the numbers.) While your position should be obvious, you should (once and once only) indicate your position in boldface. Options include, keep, delete, merge (meaning "keep, rewrite as part of another article and change the article to a redirect"), and "userfy" (meaning "move to user space and then delete the resulting redirect"). Robert A.West (Talk) 00:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for members to join Project Boston

I noticed you are from Boston. I am looking for people to join Project Boston in order to clean up and expand wikipedia articles directly reletated to Boston. If you feel like helping out please join up. Markco1 16:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)