This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
There are tags on this page and on the University at Buffalo, The State University of New York page stating that there's been a proposed merge of this page into the UB one--I can find no discussion of this proposal, and I disagree with it. If universities' sports teams and notable graduates can have their own pages (and examples of both abound), UB's one-of-a-kind poetry archive can. And should. The page should probably be expanded to provide more detailed content on the Collection's history, mission, and holdings, not subsume it into the (somewhat messy) UB main page. As our spring break is just finishing up, I won't have time to do it for a bit, but if no one else gets to it before summer, I will certainly add enough content to this page to justify its existence on its own. PoetrixViridis03:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be bold and remove the tags from both articles. If whoever wanted to merge the articles was really serious about it, it seems s/he could have taken the time to follow directions to create a place for discussion. Given no consensus for or against the merge, the tags must go. :-) ⇒ BRossowT/C23:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]