Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chemung County Historical Society


 * 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   no consensus. Seriously though, if you're voting Keep on the basis of sources you've uncovered, it would really help the article if you actually put them in... Black Kite (t) (c) 23:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Chemung County Historical Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not notable corp or organization. No independent wikipedia reliable citations. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - the annoying thing is that a little time with Google Books shows that this organization has been operating very successfully under the radar of society for many decades. It has published quite a bit about the region, has served as a resource for a number of scholars and authors, etc.; but has never (to my knowledge) become itself notable. Can no-one find adequate information in the local press to salvage this one? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Chemung Canal Bank Building, an NRHP-listed building of which this organization is the main occupant. Otherwise, just delete. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Expand - I've added several suggested sources at the article talkpage, but I suspect a phone call or email to the CCHS asking "What has been published about the society" would be the most direct approach. There are also several local newspaper articles listed here that may serve. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete NO RS establishing notability (a few passing mentions do not count).Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.    Snotty Wong   converse 19:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless multiple reliable sources can be found to meet WP:GNG.   Snotty Wong   converse 19:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and give the editor time to find reliable sources. This is exactly the type of article WP needs for reference. scope_creep (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep with the understanding that sources may be more easily found made of dead trees than electrons. I'd close this as no consensus and give it three months. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I think they use magnetic domain's rather than electrons. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly notable from the amount it has published. Publishers, and similar organization get very little press, unless they happen to do something scandalous. When I first saw the title of this article, I expected to say delete, because I am quite deletionist about local societies of all sorts, but considerably to my surprise, this one seems important. (We do generally accept county libraries as notable, though I have often been skeptical -- as threatened institutions, they usually make sure they have enough local press attention to them.) I think the importance may to some extent be ultimately based on the fact that Mark Twain's wife came from here,   and he lived here here some of his life--resulting in a good deal of important Twaine material in the collection. The ultimate principle of inclusion in Wikipedia is not WP:N, but WP:IAR. Including this will make the encyclopedia  better & more informative, and that's enough reason to include an article. It is quite explicit that IAR trumps any more specific regulation here: it has very simple wording, given in a  single sentence without any exceptions:  "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."      That's probably the solution to the perennial question of when WP:GNG applies--it applies when it helps, and does not apply when it does not help.  DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While I see your point, I don't think you have to invoke IAR to make it. WP:N still applies even where the more specific WP:GNG does not, in the sense that a topic still has to get "noticed" to get a Wikipedia entry. Notability is not limited to GNG, and there are situations where the existence of reliable sources is not the way to evaluate a subject's notability. This is in fact why we have topic-specific notability guidelines such as WP:BIO, WP:PROF, WP:BK, etc. The problem you have mentioned here about the notability of publishers is covered in WP:NMEDIA, and even though NMEDIA is still an essay, it is applied in practice as if it had a guideline status. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 06:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and work to add in line sourcing. Google News has enough hits to show notability. here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Google news and Google books both get hits. Didn't bother looking through any of them, since common sense would indicate this is what belongs in an online encyclopedia.   D r e a m Focus  04:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * - There are still no independent wikipedia reliable citations in the article at all, the rescue template was added to improve the article and the only edits from the rescue editors since then has been to vote keep in the AFD, the article as it sits is still not asserting any wikipedia notability and is uncited and in its present state should be deleted or userfied for anyone that wants to improve it.Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It might take a little longer than that to go and get some refs from the library, which is what I suspect it needs. Some things are covered poorly online. I see less utility in userfying it currently than in closing as no consensus and revisiting in 3 months. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - plenty of good sources about this organization exist, and this is exactly the sort of article that is needed more at WP. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Exsistance is not enough, there has to be ntoability.Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2010 (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.