Talk:CampusJ

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 19 February 2008, see discussion.
Keep, 5 March 2007, see discussion.

	This redirect is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article

There's nothing immediately apparent that makes this article more advertising-like than that about, for example, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. If CampusJ had been the subject of controversies or somesuch, those would certainly be noted, but it hasn't.

The only reason I'm the one who made this page is because someone else who'd tried to make one about CampusJ previously hadn't produced one that met the notability standard of several independent articles on the topic, because he didn't know where to find that coverage. That person contacted me, so I put one up myself that was largely similar to his original (but obviously I couldn't make it identical), except that it included several such articles, in order to fulfill the notability standard.

I put no personal or qualitative assessments into it; it's strictly a few facts that are indisputable, and some links to stories about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveniweiss (talk • contribs) 14:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CampusJ has had no new reporting in months. This article may have been relevant if CampusJ was a force in jewish news, but as of now it really has passed with scarcely a whimper into the dustbin of history. It is even worse that the proprietor of this defunct site made this page. Please allow the wiki entry to share the fate of the topic and fade into nothingness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

School list

There is nothing wrong with using a copied list from a website. This doesn't violate any wikipedia policy, because all of the schools are notable. What's the problem here with providing more info?--Urthogie 05:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is NOT a directory (see WP:NOT). The list of schools appears to be filler, and lacks a reference, so it could be deleted in the future under our verification policies (WP:V) unless it is properly referenced to its source. Is this list really the most interesting information that can be found about CampusJ? It would be more sensible to provide a pointer to where the list of schools can be found on the web.

It ought to be easy to do research on a web-based publication, and so giving examples of issues covered by CampusJ, especially any that could have led to comments about the CampusJ web site in other media, ought to be possible to find. The current article seems to be a worthwhile start, but the 'Big stories' section is so terse that you have to stare at it for a while to figure out what the big story actually is. Also Reference 1 is a Google News search, and per WP:EL we are not supposed to link to Google searches because their contents can change over time. EdJohnston 17:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just filler, it's useful to see whats schools it covers. It shows people who go to various schools if CampusJ covers their area. The reference of course for the schools list is CAMPUSJ.com. I'll adjust the google search reference to link directly to articles when I get a chance. Give me some time.--Urthogie 18:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list was copied directly from the CampusJ website which is in the External links section in the article. — Athænara ✉ 21:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no policy against adding a relatively small list from a website on that website's article. If there were like 50 schools I would understand this point, but there seriously aren't too many to list on the article here. It's useful info.--Urthogie 22:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to review the policies which you believe support copying a lengthy list from a website rather than incorporating information appropriately into this encyclopedia article. — Athænara ✉ 22:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed them and I hold to my view. Please quote which specific passages you think back up yours.--Urthogie 00:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might not be asking this if you had read EdJohnston's citation above. Some amplification:

However, I am warming to the inclusion of the entire list if every school on it is linked, e.g. University of California, San Diego. — Athænara ✉ 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it originally was, when I wrote the article before it was deleted. I planned on doing that again but was reverted here before I got a chance.--Urthogie 04:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. In this revision of 03:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC) I had linked a selection of fourteen of the schools. You removed them in the next edit, in the next revision of 04:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC), replacing them with the unlinked copy of the website list of thirty schools. — Athænara ✉ 06:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

30 linked schools > 30 unlinked schools > 13 linked schools > 13 unlinked schools.--Urthogie 06:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

CampusJ is defunct and is not evidently notable beyond a one-time scoop. I suggest merging to either Columbia University or New York Times controversies I'm going to give this discussion a month or two. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No longer exists as a section in the NY Times controversy page

This page is currently a redirect to List of controversies involving The New York Times#CampusJ but the section of that article covering CampusJ was removed ~2 years ago. What do you think is the best thing to do now? Revitalize this page? Re-add the section to the list of controversies with more citations? Remove it all entirely? -Procyonidae (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]