Talk:Pima Community College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Prod[edit]

I reverted a deletion of the db-prod template (i.e. reinstated the db-prod). This was not because I think it should be in place - I actually think this is quite a reasonable school article - but was reverting the undiscussed / unexplained deletion of the db-prod. Ian Cairns 09:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

{{dated prod|concern = {{{concern|school not notable; one of hundreds of community colleges;Wikipedia not a school guide; newspaper section written by current editor; writing of article poor and NOT SOURCED}}}|month = February|day = 4|year = 2007|time = 07:45|timestamp = 20070125074502}}

I've placed the db-prod here for any discussion - because the article is clearly sourced. If there are factual errors then these can be corrected. Ian Cairns 10:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ian, this page is the latest casualty in an ongoing vendetta by Don Murphy and/or meatpuppets thereof. The Pima Community College page was spuriously targetted for deletion several times already in the past by the same person or groups (Murphy is a movie producer with a message board of fans, and he has given them specific "assignments" to deface Wikipedia pages). --Kynn 06:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want to accuse me of things please follow proper procedure and offer proof. Barring that I believe Mr. Murphy might have serious claims against you. AZJustice 06:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
You know, you forgot to log off as User:AZJustice and log back on as User:Sanddancer. You'd be better able to defend yourself from accusations of sockpuppetry if you'd remember which sockpuppet you're supposed to be using for any given entry. --Kynn 06:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


weird- I don't know what you are talking about- you have accused me on my talk page of being this person and I have followed your obsession with Murphy and his former partner from page to page because, well, you amuse me kind of like Joe Pesci in Goodfellas in that famous scene. I can't log off since this is my only name. But way to go nice try to deflect the fact that you are accusing a presumably wealthy person of things without evidenceAZJustice 07:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Except that I haven't accused you on User talk:AZJustice. (You don't have a talk page. Please keep your sockpuppets right.) The thing is, though, here you jumped in and said If you want to accuse me of things please follow proper procedure and offer proof -- funny, really, that "you" (User:AZJustice) weren't accused of anything. Tell me, which accusation were you reacting to, and why were you doing it on this talk page?
And there's plenty of evidence that Murphy has targetted Wikipedia for vandalism. His presumed wealth makes no difference here, of course. --Kynn 07:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


everybody has a talk page sir.... and yes you have accused me of many things as a simple scan of your contrib page confirms AZJustice 07:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Still waiting to hear why you (AZJustice) chose to respond here, on a page where Sanddancer was accused of sockpuppetry. --Kynn 07:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


Weird, I looked high and low boy and you must have your pages wrong- until you brought him up NO ONE mentioned that esteemed UserAZJustice 07:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Check change history for the entry. --Kynn 07:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


well it wasn't visible when I showed up and I really don't care- obviously more than one person thinks the article is not notable.AZJustice 07:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion?[edit]

So, I'm confused, Ian. Do you think this entry should be deleted or not? I have not heard many arguments for deleting an entry for a school attended by 75,000, which is the only junior college in the oldest and second-largest metropolitan area in Arizona, on six campuses.

You restored the {{prod}} flag which had been removed, then you removed it yourself. I don't know if we're supposed to be debating this entry's existence or not. AZJustice has made the claim that "more than one" person thinks the article fails notability. Should a discussion on the proposal to delete therefore proceed?

The arguments in the original tag were as follows (broken out into numbered list form):

  1. school not notable;
  2. one of hundreds of community colleges;
  3. Wikipedia not a school guide;
  4. newspaper section written by current editor;
  5. writing of article poor and NOT SOURCED

My responses to these claims are:

  1. There is nothing about Pima Community College that fails WP:Schools -- especially as an editor states on the Talk page, there is a general agreement that educational institutions at the college and university level are broadly notable. I haven't seen anyone seriously dispute that a college fails at notability.
  2. This is not an argument for deletion. There are hundreds of community colleges -- and most of them do have Wikipedia articles. Likewise, there are thousands of movies, hundreds of counties, thousands of cities, and so on. It's not merely enough to state there is some number of the same category as a way of calling for deletion.
  3. Similarly, an entry on a college or university does not a "college guide" make, nor was this entry written in college guide style. I don't find the argument "Wikipedia is not a school guide" compelling.
  4. I'm not an editor of the Aztec Press paper; I'm the writing coach, a part-time temporary position. I've checked WP:COI and I don't feel this is a conflict of interest. I make efforts to maintain encyclopedic quality, verifiability, and absence of POV in everything I write. In any case, potential conflict of interest by one editor is not in itself a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is.
  5. Nothing about the writing of this page has been identified as "poor;" poor writing should be improved, not deleted. Items requiring sourcing -- which are primarily controversial or dubious statements, not listing of campuses -- should be flagged with {{fact}}, rather than calling for the page to be deleted.

I'd like to know if anyone has any legitimate arguments for deleting this article, so that this PROD can be resolved and concerns with the article addressed. It would help if specific items for improving the entry were cited and flagged with the appropriate wiki markup. Thanks. --Kynn 19:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)