Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney digital library

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 redirect to University of Sydney Library. Consensus is that it is not notable for a seperate article but am redirecting as it is a possible redirect. Davewild (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney digital library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Notability problem. With all due respect, the various services offered by university libraries do not each merit an encyclopedia article. This stub lacks reliable sources (or any citations) and makes no assertion of notability. It is similar to a promotional info brochure. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 19:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There're a number of sources on the internet that prove the subject's existance, but not it's notability. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. I just did some searches across the mainstream media, and found nothing, proving it's non-notable activity of the university.--Lester 08:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable and no reliable sources. Bidgee (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Please redirect to University of Sydney Library which already has a notable enough article. Your searches above weren't good enough obviously to find that. JRG (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are allowed to make the page a redirect during the AfD, as long as you revert if you get reasonable objections. As nom, I would not object to the redirect. (It may be unnecessary if very few people are searching for it, but if you think it would be useful, that's fine with me.) Thanks. HG | Talk 17:11, 3 September 2008 (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.