Talk:W. W. Shirk Building

This one was fairly close, but at 90% about the remodeling and 10% about the historic nature of the building, the promotional intent is just too strong. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not understanding what it would be promoting even if it does focus on the renovation. There is much more information on the remodeling than the building itself, which was an apartment complex. I can repair with more information but it will be a while. I'll repost with more info in a few days when historic center is opened again in Muncie. Jfenleybsu (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Whether or not you will get that time is entirely in the hands of each administrator who happens to take a look at the article in response to the deletion request. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline which requires them to give any extra time to you and, indeed, there is a strongly-expressed opinion that asking for additional time should be avoided (see the third bullet point). One admin may see your request and do nothing, but the next one that comes along may ignore your request and delete your article without hesitation. There are some templates which you can use to say that you're actively working on the page and need some grace: {{new page}}, {{in creation}}, {{under construction}}, {{in use}} (and maybe some others that I don't know about) but before using them you need to read their text and their documentation very carefully. More importantly, however, you should note that these templates request only a few hours grace, so you can't expect them to help you overnight or for a period of days. If you need that much time — and frankly if you need any time at all — you might consider userfying or incubating this article. Doing so will remove the article from the area where Wikipedia keeps its articles (the "main namespace", but more commonly called the "article namespace" or the "mainspace") and into either your own userspace (that's userfication) or into the Article Incubator's space. Either way, the article will not be subject to quick deletion for lack of sources or lack of notability (it still cannot, however, be unconditionally promotional and it still cannot contain Wikipedia copyright policy violations [which are different from copyright law violations], unsourced information about living persons [especially, but not only, negative information], or vandalism). — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is part of a Ball State University academic project: the author is not at all trying to promote anything. Aside from anything else, this could have been stubbed down: the building is notable because it's on the National Register of Historic Places. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, many historic buildings get much more coverage in reliable sources during and because of a renovation than at other points, so it's reasonable to have a large amount of the article concentrated on the renovation. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Nyttend! You've been a huge help with this project. Can we ask you to help with the remaining articles in our group? The other group members are posting their links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jfenleybsu. In addition to the articles you've already helped with, we also have articles for Beech Grove Cemetery, Emily Kimbrough Historic District, Grace Keiser Maring Library, and Carnegie Library Muncie. We're still waiting on one additional article to be posted. Anything you can do to help make these articles better would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!Lbowman1 (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for explaining all of this to me and I am beginning to understand, but you have to start somewhere. Thanks for your help and I look forward to hearing from you in the future as I have many other historic sites that I would like to cover. I'll be sure and ask for any help I need from you Nyttend. You've been a big help. Thanks Jfenleybsu (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)