Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Dickinson Street Co-op


 * 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 the new, sourced version and welcome folks from Mr. Rosi-Kessel's blog! We're not really that evil, we just like to give newbies a scare... ~ trialsanderrors 06:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Two Dickinson Street Co-op


Heavily contested Speedy deletion. Yank sox 22:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak delete The only sources I could find on this (after my DRV vote...) was A) The Princeton webpage and B) The Princeton student newspaper. Not convinced this really meets inclusion standards, despite claims, but they should at least get their 5 days to improve the article. I'll check back. --W.marsh 23:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Change to Keep/Merge. Sourcing seems better now, my main concern has been addressed. --W.marsh 13:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong agreement. +sj + 02:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Fails WP:N, WP:V. It should be noted that on User_talk:Eagle_101 the editor of the article hs refused to give even just one reliable source of the article to assert it's verifiability and notability. That alone should speak volumes for the article's worth. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) ((My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep passes WP:V now but I'm still not sure if it's really notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't bite the newbie. I think this is just lack of understanding, and therefore lack of preparation, not a refusal.  The Daily Princetonian is, actually, reasonably independent of the administration and has a subscribership beyond campus, so it more nearly analogous to the hometown paper reporting on some local establishment than to a house organ.  Robert A.West (Talk) 23:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wizardry_Dragon, this really wasn't an appropriate speedy. +sj +


 * He had plenty of opportunity to provide sources on User_talk:Eagle_101. He refused to do so after several requests.  As for not WP:BITE it was I that suggested DRV and gave him plenty of outs in a civil manner.  THere is no WP:BITE here. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) ((My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can only imagine how bewildering it must be to have one's first article speedy deleted. It probably seems arbitrary and unfair, even though it was neither.  Also, I just don't see how one can say someone "refused" to provide a source that probably does not exist.  I don't suggest we keep the article, just that we try harder than normal to avoid sounding accusatory.  Robert A.West (Talk) 23:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I did feel bitten. I was trying to argue the process -- whether there should be a speedy deletion or an actual debate and some time to cite reliable sources but my impression was the response was that there could be no debate. Ajkessel | Talk 23:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Er, that's why I suggested WP:DRV - that's the forum for that kind of debate, not a talk page. In either event, don't confuse User:Eagle_101's discourse with my own. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) ((My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Likewise! wow. you know, i helped clean up a couple articles a few times about a year ago and enjoyed the process (anonymously). i figured i'd make an account this time, but this process makes me sad.Aaron.michels 00:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Right on. This is at a minimum not a speedy.  Please help clean up the article if you can. +sj + 02:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete (edit conflict) I see little evidence of notability via google. The fact that every other eating club seems to have an article in Wikipedia is interesting; I have not examined those pages for independent sources of information about each club, but I don't see a source for this one.  Thus I think there needs to be more verifiable information, and notability established.  --TeaDrinker 23:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing to Weak keep or Merge per the added citations and discussion. --TeaDrinker 23:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete (edit conflict) Until I see a reliable source. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. (multiple edit conflict) No source cited asserts importance beyond the university community.  If the author wants, no objection to userfying.  Robert A.West (Talk) 23:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Eating clubs (Princeton University). Accurizer 23:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep per notability established in article. Accurizer 15:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think merging might be a reasonable compromise if there is not sufficient basis for maintaining as a separate article. I added that alternatives section in question.Ajkessel | Talk 23:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Only if there are reliable sources will I agree with this. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Verifiability. Mere mention of the existence of alternatives strikes me as uncontroversial and sourcable from the website.  I would agree that more would be doubtful.  Robert A.West (Talk) 23:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Being admitedly new to this process, I was wondering if completeness is a valid argument for inclusion. Wikipedia deciding to represent only the eating clubs could be seen as lopsided. individual articles may be neutrally written, but the content as a whole may not be neutral.Aaron.michels 00:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is specifically not a criteria for inclusion, precisely because the other articles you mention are can be nominated for deletion at any time, and because two wrongs don't make a right. The argument is derisively called the "Pokemon argument" because editors often note that there is a complete set of articles on every last Pokemon card (and a community of devotees that won't let them be deleted), so why not an article on (insert name of topic)?  The answer to articles that shouldn't exist is not more articles that shouldn't exist.  Robert A.West (Talk) 00:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment My *vote* to merge was based on my understanding of Notability, i.e., WP:N contemplates whether a subject is noteworthy of having an article itself, not necessarily whether it is appropriate for mentioning in an article. I accept the Princeton University website as a verifiable source. I hope this helps to clarify my approach. Accurizer 01:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being clear, Robert. I now understand this argument. Which makes me think, "Gee, You must have this problem a lot." From a new user's perspective, you learn what is appropraite on Wikipedia by looking at what is currently on Wikipedia, not by looking at what would be in an encyclopedia on my shelf. In this case it seemed to be safe territory for a new article, as it appeared to be an ommision among articles on parallel organizations. Apologies for stepping on toes. Aaron.michels 22:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see any bruised toes, nor any need for you to apologize. I hope you understand better and will further contribute to Wikipedia. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, or alternatively merge. I originally added the article because leaving out discussion of the student coops misrepresents an important aspect of Princeton University. Eating clubs have been called Princeton's "Peculiar Institution" (see, e.g. The Rule of Four, Page 88), and in the late 1970's student activism, including an occupation of the administration building, led to the creation of 2D as an alternative. Most of the sources currently cited in the article are from The Daily Princetonian, which, as you will note from the Wikipedia article, has a circulation of approximately 8,000 and a budget of $400,000, which indicates that it is distributed well beyond the campus community (in addition to online readers). One of the other references, Princeton Alumni Weekly, has a circulation of 65,000 source. Certainly many niche Wikipedia articles cite sources with comparable distribution that are considered WP:RS -- note both publications are independent and meet the definition of secondary source (and in fact have been used for historical scholarship). 2D has also been featured in a best-selling novel and is included in other books on Princeton, and is at least mentioned in passing in a New York Times article. 2D was also the subject of at least two anthropology studies/papers, although I'm not sure how to find the citations for them. It will take a little time to build out the article and provide proper sources, but I believe it is already better sourced at least than most of the articles about the Eating clubs. I don't think the "Pokemon argument" argument applies here, as Eating clubs and the cooperative alternative are probably the most important indicators of the socioeconomic dynamics of Princeton University, which itself I think we can all agree is quite notable.Ajkessel | Talk 02:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge It asserts notability, fairly well writtem and has decent sources. scope_creep 17:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep for reasons identified above. Wikipedia is not paper. dml 19:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with the above arguments. It seems that the article as been well cited to show that 2D is a valid institution worthy of note. Ajkessel mentions history, culture, and media articles large and small... why sensor a well-written article on a documented institution? User:Dalachin


 * Keep The article could use some refinement but there seems to be mroe than enough raw material to merit an article. The strong opposition to this seems so out-of-proportion that I wonder what's going on behind-the-scenes... -- Jon Dowland 17:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really know what, if anything, is going on behind-the-scenes, but it may be related to my slightly off-procedure attempt to challenge multiple speedy deletions. (Not due to malicious intent, I think I may just not have followed the right sequence for contesting a speedy deletion.)Ajkessel | Talk 17:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Part of a nation-wide student cooperative movement, which deserves more articles, including this one Dylan Thurston 18:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - honestly, it's a no-brainer. Well-written, cites sources, and an interesting read. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. toresbe 19:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - I've done my best to clean the article up. There are a couple more places where citations are needed, but it shouldn't be too difficult to finish off. I would assert that it now passes both WP:N and WP:V. Tim 23:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Smerge into Princeton University. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as above. wikipedia is not paper, and the article has improved greatly since this discussion began. Aaron.michels 16:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This article gives relevant and useful information. I enjoyed reading it. Catherine.Archibald


 * Strong Keep. If the all of the other eating options at Princeton get to have articles, this really should too. The previous speedy seems very inappropriate. -- mako (talk•contribs) 01:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This article has now developed into an informative, viable, corroborated piece. It contributes directly to developing a fuller understanding of Princetonʻs econonomic and social climate, as well as describing a unique part of its history and culture. Deletion seems moot at this point. And for the record, the speedy did seem quite inappropriate. ifny 18:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above commenters. It is both notable and interesting enough in my opinion.  Yamaguchi先生 22:31, 14 November 2006


 * Keep adding my $0.02. Having read Mr. Rosi-Kessel's blog entry, I was alarmed at the incredible speed and insensitivity with which some folks with administrative privileges on the wikipedia.org site were willing to just throw away a newbie editor's attempt at contribution to this compendium of knowledge.  WordNet says that an encyclopedia is "a reference work ... containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty." I do not know all the ins and outs of wikipedia notability requirements, but this article indeed seems notable enough to me (at least in its current incarnation).  I would love to learn more history of this co-op.  --Furchild 03:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Benjamin Mako Hill Tedernst | talk 03:46, 15 November 2006 (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.