Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan digitization project


 * 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 JoshuaZ 20:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Michigan digitization project

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This says little more than what is already at Google Book Search, other than a bunch of external links to press releases, news articles, etc (which is not what WIkipedia is for. Zim Zala Bim  talk  23:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't believe we are a directory of all digitization projects undertaken by library and records agencies, as that would be quite extensive. --Dhartung | Talk 03:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable digitization project. Pioneer project as well as the largest. __earth (Talk) 03:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. While this page shares many similarities with the Google Book Search article, the articles linked from this page discuss the University of Michigan's participation in this project, which is controversial in itself. Also, the article focuses on the efforts by the University of Michigan, and not Google, on providing a separate access system. And Wikipedia certainly does have a directory of digitization projects undertaken by library and records agencies: List_of_digital_library_projects. Perry Willett 14:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment just pointing out a possible conflict of interest, as User:Cpw421 (signed as "Perry Willett") is apparently the head of Michigan's digitization project. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  16:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I wasn't trying to hide that--I am the head of the Digital Library Production Service at the University of Michigan. I wrote most of this Wikipedia article.Perry Willett 18:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No worry - I wasn't trying to convey that you were hiding it. Just making it clear to everyone else. (And it isn't necessarily a problem) Cheers. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on whether you think we can improve the article, or whether you think the subject is simply inappropriate. I realize that there are a lot of links to University of Michigan material, which we can offload to a local webpage. There are also a lot of links to other articles, but they all comment in some way (positively or negatively) on Michigan's participation in this project. It would be difficult to reproduce this bibliography using Google or other search engines, and certainly isn't included in the page for Google Book Search. Anyway, if you have recommendations for improvement that would make this article acceptable, I'd be very interested. Thanks, Perry Willett 20:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to echo Perry's request for editing advice. Are there steps that could be taken to edit this article so that it would more clearly stand alone? The Michigan Digitization Project is distinct from the Google Book Search project in a number of major ways that would seem to warrant a separate article. Is the problem lack of additional content, as opposed to just additional links? Deletion seems like a drastic step in this case. Disclaimer: I work for the University of Michigan Library, but not on the Digitization Project. --Molly.ak 20:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as edited -- by me. A truly notable project, as Michigan has been the leader in Google Books, and the model that other libraries do -- or don't  -- follow. The article as written was more suitable for a professional journal than an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. The links to all the refs may be valuable, but they are not really appropriate here. I suggest that they be collected and published on your own site. DGG (talk) 01:36, 22 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.