Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Michigan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Points of interest related to Michigan on Wikipedia |
|---|
| Portal - Category - WikiProject - Stubs - Deletions |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Michigan. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.
You can help maintain the list on this page:
- To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):
-
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Michigan}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Michigan.
Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US
Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Michigan/archive.| Purge page cache | Watch this page |
[edit] Michigan
[edit] Grace A. Dow Memorial Library
Non notable library, with no sources whatsoever, no assertion of notability, no reliable sources, only one external link, only two edits since 2006, excluding this AfD, no substantive edits in a while, no room for growith, original research issues, only things that are at all interesting are that its old, founded in 1899 and that it happens to have TV stations (cable access) within the compound, although those claims are not backed up with any verifiable reliable sources. I say delete it. Myheartinchile (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I think the interesting things noted by the nominator are probably enough to prove notability. I added a reference. I even saw a reference to the library's auditorium in a New York Times article at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05EFD71039F932A05750C0A965948260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all , although I didn't add that as a reference. --Eastmain (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Lots of verifiable information[1] can be found about this > 100 year old public library. Surely it's an important institution in the community. Pburka (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Is sourced and asserts notability, contrary to the nom's comments. This is another example of why its important that users do at least minimal research before nominating articles for deletion. Just because you don't currently see sources placed in the article, that doesn't mean they don't exist. --Oakshade (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per the sources found and added above. It's history brings it beyond a run-of-the-mill local library and the RS coverage meets WP:ORG TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 00:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't meet WP:N and WP:ORG. The NYT story is about this town and briefly mentions a news conference which was held in the library, and isn't about the library itself. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Valley Public Library is a relevant previous AfD. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Just because an article of a library was deleted in the past means this library article must be deleted? Curious WP:ALLORNOTHING argument. There are more secondary sources on this library than the NYT article you mentioned. --Oakshade (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- and more here as well. The existence of event listings doesn't invalidate every other piece of RS coverage. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 16:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - the page requires work but sources are available to meet WP:N and the page contains. encyclopaedic content. TerriersFan (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Small city public libraries are not generally notable, and there is nothing here to shown that this one is. The NYT article being asserted as a source is the very model of incidental mention, just as Nick observes above. the other references are equally weak--just events held at the library. Libraries host non-=notable community events, usually several a week. Being a community meeting place is not notable, even if the internet provides links from local sources. American Libraries includes every head librarian appointment that gets sent to it--they're just directory listings. And the institution that happens to have employed a bank robber does not therefore become notable. I would very strongly oppose extending the practice with high schools to other local institutions--high schools area special case, because of the likely alumni and awards for any one that is long established. This does not happen to libraries (or fire departments, and so on. All very important in their area, but of no encyclopedic interest. No number of local community listings can make this notable unless something notable happens. If this is what 2RSs=N is interpreted as meaning, its time we got rid of it. But it doesnt--tit requires significant discussion of the subject, andthat is nto present in any of the sources. DGG (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed deletions
no articles proposed for deletion at this time
