User:Filll/AGF Challenge Library-Merge this article with the article for the town of Smithville, Iowa


 * 1) This is the best option, assuming that one revises the article to remove POV and other junk. Erik the Red 2 (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Naerii  02:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Probably the best move, assuming the library actually exists; after removing the POV parts, some facts from the article might belong in the town article (it would be better to get reliable sources, but if no controversial stuff about BLPs is involved that can be left for eventualism) *Dan T.* (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Would only merge the verifiable stuff, which might in this case be nothing. I suppose that could count as a "speedy deletion by redirect", but that's OK. Should not be impossible to find out if the library exists. Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Merge what sounds verifiable and notable and put in a citation-needed tag in the appropriate part of the target article. Notify author. -- Relata refero (disp.) 14:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) A chunk of the article appears to be about the town itself anyway, not the library specifically. - Mark 14:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) redirect and merge. Hobit (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Merge anything verifiable. There may not be internet sources, but there probably are some local or regional print sources. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) R&M, and tell the editor who created the article that (a) what they wrote wasn't neutral, (b) what they wrote wasn't sourced, and (c) I suspect that they may have some kind of conflict of interest, and link them to all the relevant policies. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 06:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Would tag for merger and then merge if no response, or if there is a response on the talk page would engage in discussion. I'd expect after merger no more than one sentence to mention the library's existence.Itsmejudith (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Would fix up and trim, then merge, possibly with some fact tags. Kelly  hi! 19:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) My first step would be to look quickly at the author's talk page and contributions to see if I get a sense that they're trying to screw with us. If I don't get a quick sense of that, then the default would be proposing a merge.  I don't take any offense to the AfD per se if an article I start is AfD'd, but this editor appears to be new, and for new editors, AfD sends a very definite signal that we don't want their trash, so if there is a reasonable alternative, such as a merge, I'd prefer that. - Dan (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) In truth I'd probably have nominated for deletion, but I suppose this is the better answer. Mackan79 (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Merge whatever was salvageable. GlassCobra 16:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) The article needs some proofreading and some wikification, but merging - along with the addition of "citation needed" flags - is the best option. Applejuicefool (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Merge it, but clean it up first.  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  21:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Merge the (very limited) appropriate content Tt 225 (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Depends a bit on the edit history &mdash; I'll make the assumption it's the work of a single new contributor. If that's the case, I would try to coach the author (if they're still around and it wasn't a drive-by contribution) on citing sources and NPOV (per WP:BITE), make a few bold edits to point the way to appropriate pruning, propose merge and, assuming there's consensus, assist with it. Somebody really cares about this library (!) but needs to learn how to contribute in a way that adheres to Wikipedia's core policies. --Sfmammamia (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Mynameisnotpj (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Sceptre (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) I will carefully check if there is any salvageable material that could be merged. A redirect is not harmful in any  case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) After the merger probably reduce the content to what's factual and eliminate as much opinion as possible. (If need be contact someone in the town for that)--T. Anthony (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Remove cruft, trim back the puffery, and keep the usable substance. --SSBohio 21:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) It's likely that a good article could be created but sourcing seems an uphill battle. After clean-up see what is actually sourcible, my hunch is that it can ret and grow in the other article.  -- Banj e  b oi   09:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)