Talk:Oakland Zoo (cheering section)

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Pittsburgh Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area 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.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

University of Pittsburgh Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Pittsburgh 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.University of PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject University of PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject University of PittsburghUniversity of Pittsburgh articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

College basketball Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject College basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college basketball 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.College basketballWikipedia:WikiProject College basketballTemplate:WikiProject College basketballcollege basketball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

is this a joke

Why the heck would this be deleted? Look at Cameron Crazies, that's not being deleted. Superbowlbound (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, please mind WP:CIV. For personal attacks you could be blocked. Second, this article is unreferenced, and fails WP:N. Cameron articles shows that their group has been mentioned in newspapers. This article could just as well be a hoax. Unless it can be improved I will nominate it for deletion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there are a ton of news articles on the zoo. The Oakland Zoo blog http://pittoaklandzoo.blogspot.com/, The Facebook group http://pitt.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2200205870, The shirts http://www.shoppittpanthers.com/catalog/product/?fcID=83282, News article http://media.www.pittnews.com/media/storage/paper879/news/2005/01/14/Sportsbasketball/Pitt-Thanks.Zoo.For.Wild.Behavior-1787859.shtml, Team Spirit http://pittsburgh.about.com/od/basketball/p/panthers.htm. There can be more, or you could search it also. Superbowlbound (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the Oakland Zoo is definitely a real organization, it is mentioned in the first paragraph of this Post-Gazette article: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07358/844102-175.stm . The reason I ranked it as low on the importance scale, however, is that while it is highly relevant to the University, city wide it is not as significant as it is on campus. I'm planning on updating and organizing this page in the near future. BocoROTH (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned in an ESPN article: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=ncb&id=3216311 I'm sure there are many other examples. BocoROTH (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again why would this be deleted?

This is notable.... it has already been decided as seen above Superbowlbound (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superbowlbound, please let your feelings known at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakland Zoo (cheering section). This article was actually never taken to discussion for nomination for deletion before. It now has been taken to that discussion (not by Piotrus) and the decision based on the discussion on that page will determine its fate.CrazyPaco (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about merging

The reason this article should not be merged with The University of Pittsburgh is because it would better fit in the Pittsburgh Panthers men's basketball section. If you want to nominate it for that feel free. I just want to save any needless discussion again. The Oakland Zoo is not a club for anyone who is wondering, it is a cheering section. Superbowlbound (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is more than adequate to have its own page now and referenced well enough now that there is no question of its notability. It is also grown too large to have any realistic place in which to merge it. Possible parent pages, such as the University of Pittsburgh main page, are already too big. The Oakland Zoo serves as the cheering section for both the men's and women's team, and isn't really appropriate to merge into either of those alone anyway. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just meant for anyone suggesting it, it would be a waste of time to try and merge it to university of Pittsburgh like some had suggested. Superbowlbound (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 100% agree. I don't think that person looked at either article.CrazyPaco (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this artcle should neither be deleted nor merged. It is quite a large article and does not appear to break any of the rules on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Jmv31 (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. It is really a non-issue now. The article was much, much smaller and not nearly as well sourced in April, 2008.CrazyPaco (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

It would be nice to add photos of the Zoo in all its frenzied glory if anyone has them. Maybe also one with some of the costumed members as well. Any additional information on the final settlement of the lawsuit would also be useful.CrazyPaco (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Jedlicka

Was Jedlicka and original member? Because there is no mention of him in the original 2000-2001 group of 9 students by either the Trib article or in Sam Sciullo's book, plus the fact he obtained his BA in 2006 and therefore seems like he may be too young to be one of the originals, I have edited him out of the list of original members.

Also, remember to keep edits "encyclopedic" and referenced in order to maintain wikipedia's standards so this article doesn't get tagged again. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Founders

Recent edits have been placing additional names of founders in the article. Regardless of whether these people were actually original members, or even founders, Wikipedia has strick policies against original research. All information must be cited by verifiable sources, which so far have been found to list only Matt Cohen and Zach Hale and/or Jon St. George as "founders". Because of the anonymity of Wikipedia editors, there is no way to determine whether additional edits are inserting frivolous names into the Zoo article as spam or vandalism. These types of spam issues exist throughout Wikipedia and thus require vigilance in order to maintain the integrity of the articles. Until sources can be added to verify the additional "founders", only individuals named in the cited, reliable source material are appropriate for inclusion in this article. Otherwise, WP:OR is violated. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The changes being continually added by User:Pittpanther2004 violate, or are in danger of violating, the following Wikipedia policies: WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, WP:Vandalism, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and WP:LIVE. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Five pillars and other edit policies|editing policies in order to avoid further edit warring.

While I believe the user is Pittpanther2004 is genuine in trying to give credit to other early members of the Zoo, his edits violate the basics of the First Pillar of Wikipedia, that is:

Content should be verifiable with citations to reliable sources. Our editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here.

There are multiple issues with the addition of the line "Jacob Sussman, David Dzendzle (which is misspelled from Dzendzel [1]) and many others". First, there is no reliable third-party source which lists them as founders or even as members of the Oakland Zoo. Multiple news reports and articles in ESPN The Magazine [2], the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], Pittsburgh Tribune-Review [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] and The Pitt News [14],[15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] repeatedly and consistently list Matt Cohen and Zach Hale as founders, with some later Pitt News articles mentioning later Zoo Vice-President Jon St. George as important member of the early group. In addition, Cohen and Hale, but not the others, get archive search hits in pay-per-view articles in The Beaver County Times[21] and the New Pittsburgh Courier [22], and are credited as founders in Sam Sciullo's book Pitt: 100 Years of Pitt Basketball [23]. It is virtually undisputed that these two individuals are popularly recognized as the founders of the Zoo by both the university itself and by the professional and student press. Secondly, multiple articles attribute Cohen and Hale as gathering eight students from the Towers dormitory for the club's first appearance.[24], [25] Assuming good faith, I have no reason not to believe that Sussman and Dzendzel were not apart of this original "other eight". However, the listing of their names (which is still unsourced) appears to give undue weight to these two individuals at the expense of the remaining six "other original" Zoo members. While these two individuals may have been more instrumental in getting the Zoo off of the ground, nowhere in published materials, at least that I am able to find, are they attributed as being responsible for originating the idea of, or founding the group, nor are they ever mentioned in any context in any published articles about the Zoo. While it may be admirable to give additional recognition to additional individuals who were instrumental in starting the Zoo, such inclusion does not warrant the removal of reliable sourced information describing the genesis of the idea of the group (the source contains direct quotes from Cohen) and information detailing the popular recognition by all published reliable sources that the group's founding is credited to Cohen and Hale. Assuming good faith edits, I have edited the information to include new sourced material about the creation of the Zoo and original eight other members from the Towers.[26] However, there is nothing to suggest that repeatedly published information regarding the unique role of Cohen and Hale as the groups founders should be removed, nor that Sussman and Dzendzel should be singled out over any of the other original members. The biggest concern here is that the role of Cohen and Hale in the group's founding, which is well documented in contemporary press accounts, is being downplayed in order to elevate specific individuals to an equivalent role/status by unknown editor. The edits, along with the language of the edit summaries, suggest possible self-promotion WP:COI violations, but it also risks violating WP:LIVE. It is my hope that the Pittpanther2004 joins this discussion about these issues in an attempt to reach WP:Consensus and ceases in the removal of the article's sourced material and edit warring. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]