Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van Spence

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 of the debate was no consensus. -- King of Hearts ^talk 02:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Van Spence[edit]

Yet another addition by User:Torshaw, copied straight from his local-interest book Terry Tales. This time it's not quite so clear cut but I think there's not enough notability or verifiability to justify keeping this article, even after a clean-up and rewrite. Delete Spondoolicks 14:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like original research, not particluarly notable subject. Waggers 15:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May require citation and cleanup, but appears to be a viable article. Kukini 16:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Doesn't appear to be particually notable. I'm also concerned that the text is a direct copy from a published book by the contributor. I hope User:Torshaw understands that he has licenced the text under the GFDL. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 16:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Let's not needlessly erase the history of Litchfield, Minnesota. Anyone who finds Litchfield suitable for inclusion will find its history notable as well. Anyone who uses the Litchfield article will find this to be useful and interesting, too. The town's history and historical figures are as notable as the town. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 18:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, can't find any verifiable info on Spence, other than Shaw's book. Could be persuaded to change my mind if this is sourced though. Why would the suitibility of Litchfield for inclusion have any bearing on articles about persons of local interest, authors who have written about it, or their books? Cities, Towns, & Villages are all suitable wikipedia material, but there are hundreds if not thousands of people of local reknown who don't meet WP:BIO and thus can't really be considered candidates for their own articles. Pertinent info could be merged to a blurb in Litchfield if anyone cares to do so.--Isotope23 20:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's my contention - I think that if a town is notable, its history, its culture, and its renowned denizens should be notable as well - as long as intelligent and unflawed articles are provided about them. I know it's far from being wikipolicy, but I advocate this view. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Waggers, appears to be original research and is non-notable. AndyZ 22:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it was original research for the article - I think it was original research for the book that the article was based on - Terry Tales, which is also slated to die, it seems. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - article needs a lot of work; if significant rewrite can be done quickly enough to remove it's copy/paste heritage, making the entry more encyclopedic, entry seems be of value, even if subject may not be considered notable in the strictest interpretation of the rules. -- 63.226.38.196 05:26, 18 March 2006 (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.