Template:Did you know nominations/Community Based Program Design
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by — Maile (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Community-based program design[edit]
- ... that one of the benefits of community-based program design is a learning experience between a consumer and a social services provider?
- Comment: This passed AfC on April 9, 2014.
Moved to mainspace by Philroc (talk). Self nominated at 00:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC).
It never ceases to amaze me the great hypocrisy of AfC - good articles get rejected, yet this has somehow made it. While it is long enough, new enough, QPQ unnecessary, no copyvios found, there is too much WP:NPOV-violating content. Furthermore, the referencing is poor and insufficient for an AfC pass, never mind a mainpage appearance. I can't even see what this is notable for. Now being considered for deletion at AfD.--Launchballer 09:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Launchballer, I see you have tagged the article AFD. As I stated in my comment on the AFD template, this article is part of a course assignment from the University of Michigan. I think it's inappropriate to delete the article. And the fact that this is a course assignment may shed some light on why something you personally call "hypocrisy" - your overt POV - is here. Wikipedia allegedly encourages university student participation. We would do well not to discourage that participation by deleting student efforts. — Maile (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
While an article is at AfD, it is put on hold at DYK until the AfD concludes. There is no point reviewing an article that may end up being deleted, but it would be inappropriate to delete it when it may be notable after all. Should it survive AfD, then the "review again" icon can be added to this nomination, but not before. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have withdrawn the AfD because it's part of a course assignment but I recommend it be moved back to AfC and worked on whilst part of the assignment - this isn't good enough for DYK at the moment, and this is for new content.--Launchballer 08:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- How am I supposed to do that? PhilrocMy contribs 17:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- I was going to say move the article to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Based Program Design, but I notice that that page never existed; where was the page before?--Launchballer 21:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- How am I supposed to do that? PhilrocMy contribs 17:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have withdrawn the AfD because it's part of a course assignment but I recommend it be moved back to AfC and worked on whilst part of the assignment - this isn't good enough for DYK at the moment, and this is for new content.--Launchballer 08:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Launchballer's comments above leave me completely lost. I can't find any instances of NPOV or poor referencing. In spite of it going to AfD, where one might imagine such concerns would be raised, there's nothing particularly interesting there either. If you're going to cast aspersions like this, you're going to have to be more specific. So, given that you've already passed the DYK criterion, is there anything holding this up? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think it might be a good idea to have a completely new full review by an experienced reviewer, given the major issues raised with the first one. (Note: I've just moved the article to "Community-based program design", and adjusted this template and its hook accordingly.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Because this article has been moved and renamed several times according to its history page and comments here, I am taking it AGF that it was new enough on 9 April. The article is long enough. This editor does not need to do a QPQ. No disambig links. External links OK. No plagiarism found. Offline citation for hook accepted AGF. As far as I can see, the issues raised here have been resolved. Good to go.--Storye book (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
