Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia University Chapter of SDS

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep/withdrawn. —Kurykh 23:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Columbia University Chapter of SDS

Nomination withdrawn - recommend closing AFD. Extensive work was done to article. Guroadrunner 07:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC) (original nominator)

Columbia University Chapter of SDS (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Largely an essay on a questionable-notable topic. However, personally I recommend transwiki-ing to WikiSource or an equivalent information service. Just not appropriate for Wikipedia. Guroadrunner 07:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC) additional information:

Recommendation - Per cerejota, I recommend:

*1) Moving article as it stands to WikiSource. - can't be sent there, see comments below

• 2) Making new stub article that is wikified correctly.

:Yes? No? Guroadrunner 07:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC) additional information: If not sent to WikiSource, I will clean slate the article and make a new stub to start from to build a proper, Wikified article. Guroadrunner 11:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP IF CLEANED UP I was too little when this happened in the 60s but in the early to mid 70s, I heard about it all the time. It was extremely important then and indirectly, now. But I think if it is going to stay, it needs a major rewrite. Postcard Cathy 07:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep and re-write. Subject is certainly notable - can't read a history of the period without mention of this -, but certainly needs a total re-write. I know experts in the field and will contact them to see if they can help with sourcing and re-write. There is actually so much wealth of material on this that I have no doubt once re-written, it will become FA fodder.--Cerejota 07:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - that's why I suggested transwiki to WikiSource. It seems like a good read, but is in too poor of a shape to stay and may be NN - this article on a chapter of an org isn't even linked in the article of the main organization it was affiliated with. Guroadrunner 07:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply we might take the article as it stand into wikisource, but we need to get out of our lazy asses and make this a wiki article, and hence we must keep at least a stub. Sources abound. I mean, even Lyndon LaRouche, a notorious political cult figure was involved in this SDS chapter (his National Caucus of Labor Committees was actually a split from the Columbia SDS' Labor Committee). --Cerejota 07:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation - Per cerejota, I recommend:

1) Moving article as it stands to WikiSource.

2) Making new stub article that is wikified correctly.

Yes? No? Guroadrunner 07:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but if we do not do this, then I am for Keep. I'll rather have sucky content that we can flesh out than no content.--Cerejota 08:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. A particularly influential chapter of the SDS. As for moving it to Wikisource, my understanding of their mission is that it is for primary sources. --Groggy Dice T | C 08:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It reads like an essay, why can't it go to WikiSource ? Guroadrunner 08:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have opened up the moving to WikiSource question to the people at WikiSource. See this link for the discussion.

If it cannot be moved, then my next recommendation is clean slate the article and start as stub. It needs wikification and cannot exist how it is right now. If it is FA material, all the better (I believe you); it just needs to be done right. Somehow I believe many will not appreciate my editing method of slash-and-cut for improperly done articles like this. Guroadrunner 08:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is a clear exception to the general practice of articles about individual chapters of an organization. They were the motivating factor in events of permanent historical importance--along with Berkeley and Kent State, the defining events of the movement. DGG (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

'::I was referring to the subject--the article itself needs to be rewritten. DGG (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Wikisource does not host original essays, but rathe previously published material. Please read "What Wikisource includes"--BirgitteSB 15:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Absolutely no sources are provided to substantiate notability. Nick Graves 15:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge if this chapter was really important to SDS it should be included on the SDS page and not its own. Other than that, there is no third party evidence of notability or any reason I can see for it to have its own page. NobutoraTakeda 16:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [1]
• Weak Delete Due to lack of sources that establish notability Corpx 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Stubbify for BLP purposes and Keep As it it is completely unreferenced original research which violates WP:BLP by naming a great many persons as faculty or student radicals or communists. This cannot persist. With no referencs required, anyone could name anyone, and this would be considered libel by some. The original article and the present version are both unreferenced narrative. They do not belong in Wikisource, ulless they cite a reliable source to say "So and so planned the library sit-in" etc. From other sources over the years I have read accounts of the SDS and its growth nationwide in the late 1960's which bear out the broad strokes of this, and sources exist to verify the notability of the SDS at Columbia, right up there with the Berkely Free Speech movement. So stub this rambling original research reminiscence essay down, then use references to create an encyclopedic article which satisfies WP:A and WP:BLP. But stating that so and so was a leading student radical is right up there with the Siegenthaler libel. The New York Times had articles on the events described, without the details about whose apartment some action was planned in, and could be a source. Various national magazines and scholarly books have also reviewed student radicalism in the 1960's and could be used as sources. Did the creator of the article state that it was all from his personal observation? Well, Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to publish it. Edison 21:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - significant player in the Columbia Univ. riots. Wl219 22:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.