User talk:JDAugustine

Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you want to get involved, but I'm afraid there's a problem with the article you created,  The Crazy Shepherd. It did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Don't feel too badly; lots of people have a little trouble when creating their first article. You might find it useful to read Your First Article for some good advice about starting to create articles on Wikipedia. Two important rules of thumb are: Avoid writing about yourself, your business, your family and friends, or your web page, and avoid writing about anything that hasn't been written about in reliable sources like books, newspapers, and magazines. Anyway, don't be discouraged. I've deleted the article you created, and feel free to ask me if you have any more questions. If I've made a mistake, and this article really is about a subject that meets the notability criteria, then please let me know my leaving me a message and links to at least three newspaper articles, magazine articles, or books that have been written about the subject, and I'll be glad to undelete it, and even add the sources so no other patroller makes the same mistake. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Day One: My experience with Wikipedia...  will apparently have to wait for another day to continue.

JA, Aug. 26, 21:36 MKE time.
 * I'm sorry you had trouble finding my talk page; there's a link to it after my name, where it says 'talk.' The problem with this article, as I said, is that there's no way to tell, from the article, whether the subject meets the notability criteria. If you decide to rewrite it, make it clearer what it is you're talking about (I couldn't even tell- is it a movie?  a band?  a person?), and include two or three reliable sources= the newspapers, magazines, and books that have discussed it in detail. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for specifying. I was also aware I was disregarding the advisement to write more than a single sentence. I noted at the time that it was only my intention to get the ball rolling for others better fit to record the history.

I did not explain why I disregarded the rule of legitimate citations. I did this in the spirit of The Crazy Shepherd, which was a free expression magazine founded by UWM Students primarily interested in defying the conventions of estabished media. The Crazy Shepherd is already mentioned on Wikipedia in the entry for The Shepherd Express, which is a direct descendant of The Crazy Shepherd. However, The Shepherd Express has totally abandoned the most basic principals of the original founders. For example, The Crazy Shepherd refused to accept advertsing which exploited women's bodies. This is why I thought a separate entry was called for.

I'm curious to see whether this is sufficient reason to have the entry restored. You may add the following as an introduction:

The Crazy Shepherd was a free expression magazine founded in the spring of 1982 as a student organization at The University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. That organization, The Society for the Establishment of Alternative Publications, (SEAP) was dedicated to the principal of defying the conventions of traditional written media. It began publishing monthly the following semester and eventually, after a long process of mergers and acquisitions, became the alternative newsweekly it is today. However, today's Shepherd Express is a very different animal from the radical beast which was it's direct ancestor.


 * If this was a student newspaper at one university without a wider circulation, it probably doesn't meet the notability criteria, unless it has been the subject of significant writing in other sources. What you've said so far is not a reason to undelete the article, because you haven't provided the necessary sources.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The use of "probably" in the if/then portion above indicates that it may not be necessary to stand down from principle in this aproval process. I do have a final argument to make, but not yet and possibly not here. If I might trouble you with a few more questions...

Are you in a position to wave the requirement of three legitimate references?

If so, would the article then be certified as having met with editorial recognition of notability?

If not, is there anyone else in a position to make that decision, and if no to this question, where would I go to argue in favor of such a process? Would that be a suggestion for the five year plan forum? JDAugustine (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're asking for permission to create an article about a subject that does not meet the notability criteria, no, there is no mechanism for doing that. Even if I recreated it, some other user would immediately mark it for deletion for not meeting the guidelines.   I don't think you would be successful in finding much support for allowing people to create articles about non-notable subjects if they ask nicely. :)  The 'probably' just indicates that there are a few student newspapers that do meet the notability criteria- the Harvard Lampoon springs to mind- but that most of them don't.  The important thing is that the publication has a significance that reaches beyond that university, and has been written about significantly in sources outside the university. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)