Talk:Rabinowitz Courthouse

Notable?

It's not clear how/why this courthouse meets the notability guidelines for inclusion. The sources present in the article only mention the courthouse briefly, and there is no indication in the text of what makes it notable. --Beloved Freak 12:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Court houses are massive government buildings which are intended to garner respect and honor. The fact that this building was named after a four-term Chief Justice who had a huge influence on Alaska from the time it was a young state, and wrote more than 1,200 opinions while on the bench spanning more than 30 years -- the governor would not choose an unimportant building willy nilly to bestow an esteemed and respected name upon it which he intended to be remembered forever. In remembrance of him, Governor Tony Knowles ordered Alaska flags to be at 1/2-staff for 5 days. Governor Knowles said, "Jay Rabinowitz devoted his life to the law.... He began his career when Alaska was a young state. His steady, thoughtful manner resulted in a body of law that will have a lasting impact on Alaska as we know it. I personally sought his guidance and input on a number of critical issues facing our state. I will miss his sense of humor and his integrity. Jay's legacy will not be forgotten." Part of not forgetting Justice Rabinowitz's legacy is naming the Courthouse after him. By suggesting the deletion of this article you would make a situation whereby any man, woman or child who seeks to know why the Courthouse is so named by looking at Wikipedia impossible. You can imagine a child researching it for a project. You'll also note that if someone can find a TV clip from the time that McCain-Palin had just lost the election, Palin gave her concession speech on national TV live in front of Rabinowitz Courthouse, with the name of the Courthouse clearly visible in the background. The building is so obviously notable it inspires me to shake my head in disbelief at the suggestion otherwise. (I don't know how to sign this properly...I used the four tildas alone and they don't cause my name to appear. Feel free to edit in my username, which is Melgomac). User: Melgogac: Melgomac (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the general notability guideline, we do have some topic-specific ones. I'm not aware of one that states that all courthouses are considered notable, but if there is, please let me know. Most of what you say above is about a chief justice, not the building. I don't think that being named after someone notable, or having someone notable standing in front of it during a speech, make a building inherently notable. I could be wrong, please feel free to ask other editors for their opinions. I'm not questioning the importance of the building, but it's "notability" on Wikipedia. I see you added some sources. I'll have a better look in the morning, but they need to show some significant coverage of the building, and be reliable. A picture of the building on Flickr, for example, doesn't help demonstrate notability. I've written some articles on buildings, so I've got nothing against it in particular. There needs to be enough in reliable sources to write a proper article on it. Can you find reliable sources that discuss the history of the building, or its architecture? By the way, I appreciate that you want to write articles on topics related to your friend, but it's not an ideal situation. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Although you're not trying to promote yourself, or an organisation, it seems from your comments above that you may not be able to maintain a neutral point of view.--Beloved Freak 22:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While refraining from becoming vitriolic or sarcastic in your response to the following question, based on what evidence have you concluded in GOOD FAITH that the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was my "friend?" Melgomac (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been sarcastic or vitriolic. I have been trying to suggest ways that you could demonstrate notability and avoid the article being deleted. I am sorry that I have obviously misunderstood and somehow insulted you by referring to the former Chief Justice as a "friend"; that was the impression that I got from your words above. I was tired last night and misread the quote as your own words, I apologise for that. Just a mistake. My advice for improving the article remains the same.--Beloved Freak 08:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption that you have insulted me is incorrect, as was your assumption that I was a "friend" of the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Obviously I found the latter ludicrous, baseless -- literally based on no evidence whatsoever, yet I indeed was not insulted. Rather, you simply made it critical for me to refute both assertions on your part. Why? Merely because they were both associated with your assertion that I had a conflict of interest and could not maintain a neutral tone, which is false. I appreciate your assistance in the matter of this article, however, even as one not polished in the nuances of Wikipedia rules and norms, even I know that "assumption of good faith" is a fundamental and core principle of Wikipedia, and on that, I think it is fair to say you have not been exemplary in this exchange. Melgomac (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have apologised for my mistake; you can accept it or not. There is not much more I can do on that score. You appear to be working on articles only related to a particular family, some of which have borderline notability. That tends to raise red flags. The internet can be a difficult medium for understanding the intent behind someone's words, and I'm sorry that you thought I was being sarcastic or vitriolic. If you need further help with this article, you can try the help desk, Editor assistance/Requests or requests for feedback. Good luck.--Beloved Freak 08:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple editors have written to me directly to ask whether (or to impress their opinion that) we should merge this article into the Jay Rabinowitz article. I think before proceeding even to contemplate that, one who is of that mindset should at least refer to a specific guideline that supports the notion that it should be moved. --Melgomac (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rabinowitz Courthouse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928085722/http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/csp/search/IC_Tracking/Site_Report.aspx?Hazard_ID=24896 to http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/csp/search/IC_Tracking/Site_Report.aspx?Hazard_ID=24896

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]