Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffalo Maritime Center


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Buffalo Maritime Center

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only local sourcing, doesn't meet WP:ORGDEPTH, also appears to be a promotional piece.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, I originally placed a PROD, which was removed by the initial editor. While additional citations have been added, they do not comprise significant coverage of the subject (and at least one appears to not mention it at all). signed,Rosguill talk 17:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, Has various sources. JimmyPiersall (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, which actually isn't a valid rationale. Onel 5969  TT me 18:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 22:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I am seeing quite a bit of solid sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , could you specify which pieces of sourcing you found significant? I see you added, which to me seems like rather trivial coverage and also is published in a local source. was also added, which is more significant coverage in general, but still reports relatively little about the Center itself (and is once again local coverage) signed,Rosguill talk 21:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Page needs work, but regional media are WP:RSes, plus there is a scholarly article among the sources. I do think that this maritime center can support a page - it just needs time and editorial attention.  This covers the public and grant funding for this center: Canal Corp., Buffalo Maritime Center unveil new phase in building of replica of historic Erie Canal boat. Someone just needs to take the time to go though the news coverage and relationships with the NGOS that it works with and the govt. funding it gets.CANAL CORPORATION, BUFFALO MARITIME CENTER UNVEIL NEW PHASE IN BUILDING OF REPLICA OF HISTORIC ERIE CANAL BOAT, SUNY College at Buffalo: Buffalo Maritime & Great Lakes Center.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I see a notable subject with WP:RSs. Good work by the above AfD ivoters. Regional media are WP:RS. Lightburst (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - the first two sources above by E.M.Gregory are press releases, and therefore invalid as to notability. The third is a promotional piece for the building's architect, again not valid for notability purposes. So the rationale for at least two of the keep !votes is invalid (the other simply said there were sources, without giving any).
 * Do not misquote me. As I clearly stated, I brought the NGO and GOVT sources to show that there has been "public and grant funding for this center".  There has been many years of regional news coverage of this Maritime Center, as I'sm sure you saw in your BEFORE search.  This is a good example of an article where it would have made a great deal of sense to tag REFIMPROVE, and encourage the inexperienced editor who started the page to improve it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Onel5969 The article has sufficient WP:RS. E.M.Gregory is a thorough ivoter and I appreciated the NGO and GOVT sources. Note:WP:BEFORE is an actual policy not a guideline. And part of that policy is to consider WP:ATD or as E.M.Gregory states: apply an appropriate cleanup tag, such as notability, hoax, original research, or advert. Also other policies to consider WP:IMPERFECT, WP:IMPROVE and WP:PRESERVE. Lightburst (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Did not misquote you, simply stated a fact about the links you provided. And while local coverage is there, it does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel 5969  TT me 17:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep striking previous delete vote and switching sides. While Onel is correct that currently provided coverage does not meet CORPDEPTH (including the additional sources added in this discussion), I think that E.M. Gregory's findings vis-a-vis grant funding suggests that WP:NPOSSIBLE is likely enough to justify keeping. signed,Rosguill talk 19:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have done a basic cleanup/source of an article that really was so badly composed that I quite see how it misled you and User:Onel5969 into thinking that this was a vanity page for some sort of non-notable boat project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep -- We usually have articles on museums. If this were just a training programme in boat building, I might question its merits, but it is not.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.