Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Dunning

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus . Mr.Z-man 03:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Dunning[edit]

In my opinion, based upon the information in this article, this person does not meet the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator without comment or sourcing. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, well below WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 13:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This should have been a speedy delete for WP:BIO --Pmedema (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep -- I think this article technically meets the letter of the Notability Guideline but not the spirit. Having said that, however, it appears well-sourced and therefore reliable, so I am open to keeping the article. I note that the author has continued to work on the article. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 13:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know if we have a notability guideline for philanthropists, but I think anyone who gives millions of dollars to public institutions, which then get (re-)named for the donor, is per se notable. Presumably users of the Dunning-Hough library (which serves tens of thousands at least) is going to want to know who Dunning was. Kestenbaum 14:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per A.B. and Kestenbaum: meets notability. Should be rewritten to read less like a vanity piece. --Paularblaster (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete She gave money to build a museum in a village of 9,000 people. The village considers her one of the 16 people inducted into its Hall of Fame. The top 16 citizens in a community that size are not necessarily notable. Giving a million dollars is not notable philanthropy. It might have been a century ago, but even then I doubt it. This is equivalent to the articles on local road officials and school board members in Louisiana we have been previously deleting here. If the users of the library want to know who she is, they can look at the plaque that is no doubt on the wall, or consult its web site. that's appropriate weight. DGG (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Plymouth was a village once, but it's been a city since 1932, and the library service area (a cluster of four tightly interrelated suburbs) has a census-estimated population of 67,905 (Plymouth city and township, plus Northville city and township). -- Also, when was it decided that $1 million isn't notable philanthropy? I don't have time to go through all the articles in Category:Philanthropists, but the first one I looked at was Caroline Kaufer, who apparently clocked in at about one and a third million. Kestenbaum (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, correction. The catchment area for the Plymouth library is only two of those areas I mentioned, Plymouth city plus Plymouth Township, with a total population of 35,915. Contrary to what I thought, the adjoining Northville area is not included. But that's still a lot more than a "village" of 9,000. Kestenbaum (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the amount of money constituting notable philanthropy, it relies on the common sense of WPedians--at this time, this is not a significant sum of money as philanthropy goes, and would have gotten her notice in any more substantial place. A library in a town of 30,000 is almost never considered notable in WP, so someone whose main claim to fame is providing the money or one is hardly going to be notable either. DGG (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.