Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard A. Gephardt Papers Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 KEEP info, MERGED to Richard Gephardt. (I did a "quick merge") - Nabla 01:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard A. Gephardt Papers Project

Richard A. Gephardt Papers Project (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article about the personal papers project of Richard Gephardt. Notability is not transferable--while the papers' subject is notable, the project isn't. Blueboy96 20:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge Project is worth a paragraph in the Congressman's article, certainly. "Legacies" of famous persons are frequently mentioned at the end of their biographies. Xoloz 20:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge though a paragraph might be a bit much. State and university libraries often act as repositories of the papers of prominent individuals and many times these are grant-funded, so there is nothing particularly notable about this project. --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is very common from one POV of view (there are many archives of famous folks), and very uncommon from another (it seems to be the only one for Dick!) -- hence, the merge to him, as his admirers (and detractors) are likely to find it a unique resource. Xoloz 21:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Xoloz and Dhartung. As a general observation, biographical articles about public figures who have significant collections of papers available for research should mention this fact, if possible with a link to the finding aid for the collection, which is often available online. Newyorkbrad 00:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Exactly, this is similar to a source/topic confusion, where an editor believes that because something fulfills the WP:RS criteria it is WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 05:30, 10 August 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.