Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley M. Rowe Arboretum


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Stanley M. Rowe Arboretum

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I've looked around for some sources that might indicate the notability of this arboretum, and have not been able to find anything from reliable sources beyond passing mentions that it exists and is a nice place to visit. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as having insufficient in-dpeth coverage in independent third party sources to meet WP:GNG. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This arboretum has received an award from the American Horticultural Society and has been officially designated a Conifer Reference Garden by the American Conifer Society. I have added three external references to the article to document it better. Daderot (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice you added the references but did not actually add any text. After checking the online refs it is fairly easy to see why, there is very little there, mostly directory-type listings. After looking at the extensive bio from UC (as I recall there is a building on campus named for him) I can see a case for having an article on Mr. Rowe himself that would incorporate this content, but those refs do little to establish notability of the arboretum itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I added a sentence about it being named a Conifer Reference Garden. Personally I believe that reputable arboreta are notable, and this one seems to have two objective criteria as to its notability, including an article in the American Horticultural Society magazine and a listing in the American Conifer Society web site. These are not directory-type listings as you describe them. I understand your view that "it exists and is a nice place to visit", but to some of us reputable arboreta are a bit more than that. with best wishes, Daderot (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with that argument is that you just made up those criteria based on your personal feelings. Perhaps a guideline is needed, but at present I do not believe it exists. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to Stanley M. Rowe as per Beeblebrox and sources provided by Daderot. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as an independent article. Let me quote the Wikipedia general notability guidelines (WP:GNG): "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I believe that this article has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and hence is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. If you disagree with this point, could you please be specific on what points you disagree with? Best wishes, Daderot (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe have already said fairly specifically that I do not see any depth in the coverage. Could you point out which refs indicate in- depth coverage? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I've reached my fill here. Not much pleasure in contributing to Wikipedia any more. cheers, Daderot (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All I did was answer your question and ask you a similar one by way of reply. And for that I get this Catholic mother guilt trip of a reply? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This news article featuring the Rowe Arboretum, and these sources,, , , , , although web based, are enough to show notability. FurrySings (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2012 (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.