Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Detroit Focus Quarterly

Deletion of Detroit Focus Quarterly (DFQ)

Hi Katefan0;

I've moved for work, and I was unable to explain the importance of DFQ to the artistic community of Southwestern Michigan. DFQ is a part of an organization that periodically hosts region-wide photographic exhibitions at numerous locations, at least 100 venues in the year 2000. The handbook published by Detroit Focus, for finding all of these venues is now a collectible, and the contents a rosetta stone for unlocking photography in southwestern Michigan. I am concerned that we have lost valuable cultural references with this deletion.

Sincerely,

William Juntunen Royal Oak, Michigan

Writing to Each Wikipedia in turn
Dear Isotope23

I'll be happy to share with you the bold accomplishments of this organization, which is still active. The organization hosted a major exhibition, region-wide, which I write about below.

Do you every hang in Royal Oak? I do most of my Wikipedia work in Sweetwaters on Main Street, using the free wi-fi.

........

I've moved for work, and I was unable to explain the importance of DFQ to the artistic community of Southwestern Michigan. DFQ is a part of an organization that periodically hosts region-wide photographic exhibitions at numerous locations, at least 100 venues in the year 2000. The handbook published by Detroit Focus, for finding all of these venues is now a collectible, and the contents a rosetta stone for unlocking photography in southwestern Michigan. I am concerned that we have lost valuable cultural references with this deletion.

Sincerely,

William Juntunen Royal Oak, Michigan

Reply to Katefan0
Thank you Katefan0 for you kind and swift reply. I appreciate your volunteering to handle administrative duties on Wikipedia, and I will return to your talk page to mark it with four tildes.

It is my understanding that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and deletion isn't always carried out on basis of vote counting. In certain cases, the merits of one argument can win over multiple votes, or at least stay a deletion for additional discussion. And if the author of an article is a Wikipedian in good faith, as I feel I am, it is perhaps unsound to delete his article without providing notice to that author in good faith. Perhaps deletion without representation is tantamount to taxation without representation?

It is easy to continue to document how Detroit Focus Quarterly is a reference periodical for any art critic interested in coming to terms with the Cass Cooridor Art Movement. I believe that its collection by libraries of art history sufficiently warrants its inclusion in Wikipedia. After all, Wikipedia is attempting to benchmark other scholarly sources, such as Encarta. I expect that Detroit Focus Quarterly will be easily found in OCLC.

Online Computer Library Center, Inc. www.oclc.org/

Sincerely

Will Juntunen Wmjuntunen 15:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for Undeletion: Detroit Focus Quarterly is collected in Research Libraries
Dear Katefan0:

Thank you for the generosity of your replies. Wikipedia is constantly fine-tuning itself. A deletion notice, as a separate feature from the watch-list, might strike one of the Wikipedia commitees as a robust addition. Wikipedia is a gentleperson's pursuit, and direct email notification is jolly good sport. And surely, the deletion of DFQ strikes me as not entirely cricket.

The technology to email a notification is clearly easy to implement. As an analogy, if I am to be called into court, I can be called into court with a posting to a public newspaper. That's like a watchlist. However, the court is extra fair by sending a court officer to serve a subpoena at my door, into my hand. That's like an alert email. And even though I can't afford time to check Wikipedia, I always check my email.

Wikipedia allows stubs in artistic categories; this deleted article had a short history of DFQ as well as a link to the newest incarnation of DFQ, the Detroit Focus website. That's a pretty good stub. More, DFQ is listed in library collections, and thus it was a valid stub. Wikipedia will grow stronger by benchmarking OCLC and scholary works of bibliography, at least in stubs. More, as the Wikipedians who googled DFQ and still voted for deletion might have noticed, most of the entries on Google are from artists who include DFQ on their vitas, hallmarking a critically acclaimed artistic career. Indeed, I learned of DFQ when reviewing the archives of a rather famous local artist.

Stubs are valid because that's how Wikipedia announces a valid catergory about which more information is wanted. I had emailed the current president of this organization in order to find a member willing to maintain the entry. I will document these email conversations in the talk sections in the future, so people reviewing the article can write themselves, if their wish for scholary rigour motivates.

My continued conversation on this topic has potentially great fruit. What is available to you, in terms of strengthening your career as a Wikipedian, by looking up DFQ in OCLC and then reversing your deletion decision? Or at least, placing the matter into an ombudsman or mediation process? As for the idea of my re-writing the article, I might do so, but not when incomplete scholarship has too much power. Actually, I will rewrite the article once I have a list of all the artists who have been documented by DFQ.

With the greatest respect

Wmjuntunen 16:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Should Deletion Process Have ONE ANGEL ADVOCATE !!!!
Fining Tuning the Judgment of a Wikipedia Administrator - My Coaching

Thank you for the direction to the town pump. Would you also direct me to the process for requesting undeletion. I believe my entry in talk is sufficient, but please guide me on this.

Again, my concern is to fine-tune Wikipedia. If Wikipedia can delete an entry upon DFQ with five votes, with very little discussion of art history, then Wikipedia is going to miss valuable content. More, can an intellectual decision be rendered without one response from the angel's side? An unanimous decision is great in a democracy, but in a deliberative process is egregious. Wikipedia is a deliberation, not a democracy. Deliberation requires a voice from all sides, and even goes to the point of finding the voice of the other side. Was there an effort to find an angel's voice for DFQ, if not mine? For example, in the sainthood process, an angel's advocate and a devil's advocate is appointed.

With deepest appreciation of your willingness to engage this discussion.

Wmjuntunen 16:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)