User talk:Joe Decker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please leave new sections at the bottom of the page, not the top. Pressing "New section" will do the right thing. Thank you.

Center for Faith and Public Life[edit]

When this article was deleted I was in the midst of responding to several delete notices initiated by a new editor who is no longer with us. I just got a chance to enlarge the article and improve on external and independent references. I think it should be a stand-alone article separate from Fairfield University, even as athletics and alumni at times become excessive for inclusion in the main article. What can I do to propose my new version?Jzsj (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Jzsj:
Sorry for the delay in responding.
First, a bit of background: The principal bar for inclusion of a topic on Wikipedia is what is (somewhat misleadingly, I feel) described as our notability guideline, the policy form of it can be read at WP:GNG, but be warned that is a terrible way to make sense of what's actually being asked for, as it makes use of a number of common words in senses outside their usual meaning in English. A lot of legalese "terms of art", if you will. Sometime back, I attempted to make a clearer summary of the standard at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable, perhaps that will give you a better sense of what we're looking for.
As I closed the discussion, if your new draft (in your sandbox, if I'm not mistaken) doesn't so obviously meet this bar that I can suggest immediate recreation. There are a few paths forward. First, there's a couple ways you can go about getting help for trying to improve the references in the article to meet these standards. One I'd highly recommend is the WP:Teahouse, which is a help line specifically targeted at newer editors here, a second is the somewhat backlogged Articles for Creation process. You'll get a much quicker response, and more complete assistance, from the first path, in all likelihood.
Also, if you feel I've erred in this, there's a simple route for appeal, that would be Deletion Review, and you're welcome to ask there in that case.
Best of luck! --joe deckertalk 18:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I suppose the "if" in the first line of the second paragraph is a typo. I would like to re-present the article, but not as a review of the previous.and I'm not saying you erred in rejecting that version. Since then I've checked seven pages of Google and added several key references, and I have little hope that others will do better, or care to try. Could I just re-present it as a draft or article and wait for a response?Jzsj (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, you can absolutely create a Draft and submit it to AFC. The only thing that gave me pause about recommending that first is that I know that some of the drafts are sitting there for several days, often a few weeks, before being responded to, and I hate leaving new contributors waiting. But that was my primary concern with that path.
One thought: Consider also asking for a second opinion and ideas from the folks at the Teahouse (link above) at the same time, but yeah, do go ahead and pursue a draft, and submitting it to AfC by adding a {{submit}} template. --joe deckertalk 01:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Elio Capradossi[edit]

Hi Joe Decker, recently an article that I started a couple years ago and that was deleted Elio Capradossi, has been started by another user. I was wondering if content from the original article could be accessed and cycled back into the new one. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I've restored the old versions of the file into the article history, you should be able to see them now at [1]. It appears that the player has now had an appearance in a fully professional league, which should preclude future deletion. --joe deckertalk 17:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)