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. No arguments in favour of deletion other than the nominator's. Consensus is to keep. Michig (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Schmieder Arboretum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable arboretum at a university. Not recognized for any unique plantlife or conservation measures or anything really. Just having some trees. GrapedApe (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable arboretum at a university. See here, for example. Warden (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on that source, I would be amenable to a content merge to Delaware Valley College.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC) (nom)[reply]

• Keep. This is a college arboretum. Why would you unilaterally decide that it is not notable and "just has some trees"? There are thousands of organized arboretum articles in Wikipedia, so please do not merge it into the Delaware Valley College article. with best wishes, Daderot (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please prove the notability of the Henry Schmieder Arboretum by adding multiple independent reliable sources, which is required under Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Otherwise, the guideline states that "Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article." (i.e. merge into Delaware Valley College)--GrapedApe (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, the article now cites two scholarly references for the arboretum. Daderot (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been unable to identify the portion of Early North American Arboreta source relating to the Henry Schmieder Arboretum. Please assist.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep – The nominator hasn't advanced any arguments to substantiate the opinion of the nomination, and hasn't qualified the statement of the arboretum as being unrecognized per they types of plantlife present at the arboretum. Perhaps the nominator should attempt more research, rather than asking it of others. This nomination seems to be more of an opinion rather than based upon first checking out the availability of reliable sources. Improve the article instead, per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Merry Christmas, happy holidays and a happy new year. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.