Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1946 Huntington Planning Map

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 Merge to Huntington, New York. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:46Z

[edit] 1946 Huntington Planning Map

1946 Huntington Planning Map (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a map that was produced by the town of Huntington, New York in 1946. It's no more notable than any other map. I tried to explain to the author on the talk page how the article is original research, but was unsuccessful; I would appreciate it if someone else, who may be better at communicating, could try. However, this research may be useful, so I think this should be transwikied to Commons. --NE2 04:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - the actual images itself are already at Commons... MER-C 04:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this is clearly OR no matter how interesting and Wikipedia is not the place for publishing same. Would make a good urban planning magazine article. --Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP this is not OR. The map itself is the original source, and the article describes the map. A physical description of a map is not OR. Nardman1 08:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment at best, that would allow us to keep a description of the map. The conclusions about what it shows about suburban development patterns utterly fail WP:V. Without that, the map has no apparent significance outside of Huntington. Who, other than the author of our article, has deemed this a significant map? --Dhartung | Talk 17:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Nardman1  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}  09:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the article makes a case for notability, and its mostly verifiable by the map. Also, clean a little, and some sources other than the map should be listed for things the map does not defend alone. —siroχo 10:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't understand. Governments have produced millions of maps just like this one. Should we have an article on each one? --NE2 15:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • More to the point, unless there are sources about this map in particular, the conclusions are unsupported. --Dhartung | Talk 17:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The map is at commons so can be used in articles. There are no sources, references and this is just an indistriminate set of information. No more notable than hundreds of other survey maps, ordinance maps etc. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. This is simply a source media file and does not merit an article - Peripitus (Talk) 10:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per siroχo. Mathmo ^Talk 12:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the article makes no claim to notability, does not explain why this map is significant and offers no sources. All we have is the authors opinions on what the map demonstrates and observations on what is on, and not on, the map. Nuttah68 17:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly add map as a link to Huntington, New York. Assertion of notability appears to be a combination of original research and WP:ILIKEIT. The article claims with no supporting sources that the map has a significant role in urban history and points out features as "notable" without relying on Wikipedia's notability policy requiring evidence of coverage by independent publications. These claims need to be sourced or this article needs to be deleted. --Shirahadasha 20:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Did anybody actually read the talk page before voting? Many people have voted to delete because there are no sources to support notability but the talk page clearly states that expert sources are available and were offered. The Huntington Town Historian and the Long Island History Museum have both stated notability so this shouldn't be an issue?. You don't delete an article that just needs a little fixing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fife Club (talk • contribs) 21:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Comment, yes I read your comments on the articles talk page and nowhere do you offer any evidence of notability. The fact that an organisation chooses to archive something does not impart or even infer notability. I advise you to read WP:V and WP:RS. Nuttah68 21:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I advise you to read it again. I did say that the LI history museum only chose to add it to the archives, but I clearly stated that the Huntington Town Historian (the most reliable expert on this subject you can possibly think of) has indeed confirmed the map's historical notability, in writing. Fife Club 14:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, as Nardman stated, the verifiable description of a map does not constitute original research. If so, you would need to delete most movie articles for the same reason that they too are just describing the available source material they saw. Fife Club 21:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or 'transwiki' somewhere. To be 'notable' the map would need to have been written about in multiple publications. All we see is the map and someone's original research of examining it and writing about it. Having a bunch of real places on a map does nothing to make the map itself notable. Also, did the city grant permission to reproduce it? Otherwise it is a copyright violation, since a high resolution copy is not any kind of fair use exception. As for the previous comment about movie article having to be deleted as original research, feel free to nominate a bunch of them and see how it goes. Inkpaduta 22:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not a copyright violation, since it was published before 1964 and its copyright was not renewed. --NE2 23:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • WTF!? Who the hell do you think you are to override the copyright information with your own personal opinion? Here's the history of the original file I uploaded to the commons, and you see NE2 (the same user who began this debate) removed the actual reason it is public domain with his own "real" personal assessment. There was previous discussion on in the Village Pump about how it the file absolutely would have fallen under copyright. I don't know why you assumed the copyright ran out in 1974 because you tend to never explain your edit reasoning but it never expired. I personally got written permission from the copyright holder, that fact was clearly stated on the files copyright section, and you decided to remove it without any discussion, which is your M.O. This is why so many people are confused, because you keep giving false information and I keep having to explain the truth. Fife Club 14:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      • The copyright of any work published first in the U.S. before 1964, whose copyright was not renewed, expired 28 years after publishing. --NE2 17:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to a place article. It's an interesting bit of local history. Everyking 07:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also, this article has the most un-interesting "interesting facts" section I've ever read. --193.166.15.251 15:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, should have been a speedy - this isn't an encyclopedia article. The image can be at commons, but all content requires sources. Addhoc 19:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Addhoc, Dhartung, and WP:NOR. "I've got emails from the Huntington Town Historian", as stated on the talk page, is the definition of original research. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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.