Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princeton community works

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was delete. Ingoolemo talk 06:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton community works

[edit]

A non-profit organization not notable outside Princeton, New Jersey. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 21:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This is a strong grassroot non-profit organization which fuels the success of hundreds of other non-profit organizations in the region.

This article will start/inspire more entries by others on the subjects of Non-profits management, Non-profits fund raising, Non-profits board issues, Non-profits marketing, Non-profits PR, Non-profits low cost Web usage, etc. This group helps many low-budget and low-profile non-profit/volunteer groups survive and grow. This group offers workshops and will share knowledge with other similar groups in the country. Many such groups and organizations are not tech-savvy to be know on the Web. This entry in the Wikipedia may help other such groups to learn and grow. This group has provided free help to other volunteer/non-profits for 9 years and made significant impact to the society. It does not make sense that when many users come to Wikipedia and can't find "Princeton Community Works." Please give us comments to help us KEEP this entry. WangWeiHsing 05:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN. I get 64 hits on Google for this. Our local community foundation gets over 1,000 hits, but doesn't have a Wikipedia article. - Dalbury 11:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many adult sites may have a huge number of hits on Google, but it doesn't mean that they should have a Wikipedia article. An entity doing significant work cannot be judged by just Google hits. This group is helping hundreds of small/low-budget volunteer groups, and could be the only training they receive in the entire year. These small(some are large) groups touch the lives of at least a hundred thousand needy people, or solve society and environment issues. If you are part of this kind of low-budget group, you understand that they cannot spend money on building Web presence -- although they should learn to do it at almost no cost. However, if they go to a library and use the Wikipedia, can they find Princeton Community Works? Any local school can have a Wikipedia entry if it is done right, any local community foundation should not be denied an entry, either. WangWeiHsing 14:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please vote only once. Duplicate votes are not counted and just make it more difficult for the administrator to tally everything correctly. You ask, "if they go to a library and use the Internet, can they find Princeton Community Works?" The answer is YES because the group has a web site that's the first result when searching Google. Nobody is denying that Princeton Community Works does good things; just that it is not worthy of a Wikipedia article at this time. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 16:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC) Thanks, the error is corrected as above. This group has proved to be Notable in a large region during a long period of time, it is worthy of a Wikipedia article. WangWeiHsing 17:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination Ejrrjs | What? 23:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC) ***** To me, just 'What?' is not polite, to say the least. If someone did that to you, you can choose not to do it to others.[reply]
    • You misunderstood. The "what?" link is to Ejrrjs' talk page and has nothing to do with this AFD nomination or yourself. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 06:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ejrrjs can improve on writing, while the world can improve on reading, fair?
At least I do sign my comments. Calm down. Ejrrjs | What? 22:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All those duplicate comments on 'not notable' or 'not worthy' are not healthy and not agreeable among Wikipedia community. You knew it, you have seen it, you have been there, done that, right? Take a look at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_reform, and specially this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_reform/Brainstorming#Remove_notable_requirement

Please don't just go around and cast your vote on this same reason, read more and think more. Why get in the habit of deleting others' entries with 'not worthy/not notable?' If you don't have a 'real' reason, your vote looks like you are showing your anger at what others may have done to you.

WangWeiHsing 04:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability I quote "It has been argued that lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because (among other things) this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy; and since Wikipedia is not paper with (in theory) no size limits, there's no reason why wikipedia shouldn't include "everything" that fits in with our other criteria, such as verifiability and no original research. " WangWeiHsing 05:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those of us who patrol AFD regularly are very familiar with what you're citing. Note that none of that is actual policy, but discussion on how we can improve the deletion process. Notability has been a contentious issue among Wikipedia editors, but even without considering notability, you have shown us any verification according to WP:V. Do that and we'll be glad to reconsider. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 06:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't care a jot about notability, but one half of this is unverified (if it is a significant workshop, where is the press about it? external sources? verification?), the other half is just a list of attendees at a yearly meeting (Wikipedia is not a directory). A workshop that - as far as I can tell - rents a hall in Princeton University's Frist Center once a year really needs something more. However noble it may be, this is just advertising, not an encyclopedia article. Ziggurat 10:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • How about an article on Princeton University Web site? It is at:

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/A97/83/77K80/index.xml I quote "Co-hosted by the University's Office of Community and State Affairs and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and convened by Marge Smith, chair of the Human Services Commission of Princeton, the annual "Community Works" conference encourages non-profit professionals from throughout Mercer County to network and solve problems. Smith said the group identified fundraising, working with volunteers effectively and staff retention as ongoing challenges. But state and university officials praised participants for their daily work, despite such dilemmas."

How about an article on a regional newspaper, US 1, at: http://www.princetoninfo.com/200101/10124s01.html I quote, "Seltzer speaks at Community Works' Workshops for Volunteer Development at the Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School on Thursday, February 1, 5 to 9:15 p.m. Sponsored by the Rotary Club of Princeton, the $25 cost includes a box supper and two workshops. DeForest B. "Buster" Soaries Jr., New Jersey secretary of state, is the keynote speaker. "

How about another article on US 1 newspaper in a different year, at: http://www.princetoninfo.com/200301/30115s04.html (click on "For Volunteers, Networking & Training") I quote, "... a keynote address by Regina L. Thomas, New Jersey's secretary of state"

It is verified.

I will put those, and more, citations on the page, after "DELETE" is no longer an issue.

WangWeiHsing 13:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that you do so now rather than waiting? Improving a page to demonstrate that it should not be deleted is the best way to argue this point. The attendance list, for example, doesn't fit in at all. Ziggurat 04:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DONE! WangWeiHsing 05:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, okay, but if you take a look at some other places you'll see what I mean by citing sources and verifiability - you have a lot of information in the article which needs to be validated, and a couple of mentions in a couple of newspaper articles don't go very far along those lines on their own. There needs to be multiple reliable sources for the facts that you provide, and all that these links seem to prove is that it exists, which isn't sufficient to demonstrate that it should be in an encyclopedia. Ziggurat 08:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Could each of you who visited this page give me an example of a like-kind Wikipedia article for me to learn from? You must have some other examples in mind already, right? It should take you just a minute to do this. I will also do my part to find and meet the standard. What if I have materials not on-line? Scan and upload?

WangWeiHsing 14:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse us if we seem brief in our criticisms, because as you can see there is a large volume of articles that get nominated for deletion every day! Basically, articles need to be encyclopedic, both in subject and in content, and some people think that your subject is non-encyclopedic in that you haven't demonstrated why it is relevant to anyone outside of the local community. Ways to demonstrate this would be to show that it is unique, special, or unusual, or that it has received considerable press in several reliable, fact-checked publications like books, large newspapers, or the like. Unfortunately, many people try to use Wikipedia to promote or advertise things, and there is often a strong reaction to the appearance of this, which is what I think you may be dealing with here. The best examples of Wikipedia articles are the featured articles, and all of them contain multiple sources (as I said, books, significant news reports, and so forth) to back up the facts that they provide. More specifically, articles like Wellcome Trust and British Helsinki Human Rights Group provide a good model of the kind of verification that articles need. If you have offline materials (note that they still have to fulfil the criteria of reliable sources) you don't need to scan them, just reference them as detailed in Wikipedia:Cite sources. I will warn you, though, that the bar is set pretty high, and there will have to be some extraordinary proof that this is more than just an annual conference attended by some community groups (there are literally tens of thousands of such meetings, few of which would be encyclopedic). Good luck! Ziggurat 20:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Princeton_community_works&oldid=1138254367"