Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams County Public Library

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 merge all to their respective locales. I'd like to note that the contention that a WikiProject and not this AfD should decide this issue is contrary to both WP:OWN and the deletion policy, which characterises AfD as a public debate. On the other hand, most of those that support deletion seem not to mind a merger very much, so that's probably the most consensual outcome.

As is usual with mass AfDs, yours truly is kindly requesting the community to carry out the decision - i.e., merge the content and turn the article into a redirect. Please link to this AfD in the redirect edit summary and leave the AfD tags on until the merge/redirect is done. Thanks, Sandstein 20:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adams County Public Library

edit
Adams County Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non notable library system in Ohio; I will also be nominating many others, all of which have similar text and do not serve major cities or metro areas. Brianyoumans 04:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated (all in Ohio, all with the same basic format): Garnet A. Wilson Public Library, Herrick Memorial Library, London Public Library (Ohio), Mary L. Cook Public Library, Monroe County District Library, Mount Sterling Public Library, Perry Public Library, Plain City Public Library, Sylvester Memorial Public Library, Wauseon Public Library, Wayne Public Library, Wellsville Carnegie Public Library, Weston Public Library, Willard Memorial Library, Wilmington Public Library of Clinton County There are others that could be nominated, but they are larger or have additional text. --Brianyoumans 04:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Keeping these seems, I dunno, kind of like professional courtesy from one repository of knowledge to another - Richfife 05:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - no assertion of notability. MER-C 06:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - This should be covered in each municipality/county where each is covered. No assertion of notability beyond mere existance. SImple existing does not make one notable. --Jayron32 06:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - This is a project of [WikiProject_Ohio and appears on the project page. CRKingston 09:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All or Merge to their respective localities' articles. Being part of a wikiproject doesn't mean the articles don't need to show noteworthiness, and these don't assert it. In their current state, they're basically directory entries. They have no secondary sources, and convey little information. Shimeru 10:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to whatever locale they serve. - Mgm|(talk) 11:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all as per Shimeru. While I am a part of the WikiProject, notability is a must-have for any article on Wikipedia. Blast 12.06.06 0718 (UTC -5)
  • Merge all to respective localities, as suggested by Shimeru and WP:LOCAL.-- danntm T C 15:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all. I do not see any point in someone taking an online database and creating an article for each entry. It would be better for a user to look at the source database, which is likely to have more up to date info. Will someone make it his job to update these 3 sentence articles when the library's collection of circulation stats change? Edison 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree with Edison. If we leave out the information on circulation and number of cardholders, all that is left to merge is the name of the library and a link to its website. Is that worth merging? I think it is fair to assume that just about every locality of substantial size in America has a public library; what would be notable would be if one didn't. --Brianyoumans 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into their respective communities' articles. That's the best way to handle articles on libraries, fire depts, police depts, and other local services. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow the Project team to decide - As this is a part of WikiProject Ohio, I would STRONGLY suggest that the folks from that project team be made aware of this deletion effort ASAP, and do not take any action until that project team has a chance to thoroughly discuss this. Deleting stuff that is maintained by a project team without their consent is against the spirit of these teams. Outsiders' opinions are fine, but let the team do its job. Scott Mingus 17:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I certainly agree that in matters that involve a significant amount of special expertise, the team involved should be consulted and have a large say (although perhaps not the final word). In this case, I think that most of us possess the knowledge to evaluate the notabiility of stub articles about small to medium-sized library systems. I think it would also be different if the articles were brand new, but they are mostly at least a month old, as I remember, and some older - the team must have been aware of them, since they are tagged as part of the project, and chose to leave them in place. --Brianyoumans 17:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per Shimeru. Is there really anything more than a sentence or two about any of these? As an alternative (or in addition to) merging into each locale's page, could merge all into Ohio Public Libraries. A unified article covering them all might be a viable article...more useful ("where are the libraries?" instead of "tell me about a library if I know which one I want (by name, not ___location!)"). And would provide more likely notability and opportunity for content beyond a mere directory listing (history of libraries in the state, interesting/unique policies, features or collections, etc). DMacks 17:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I would object to a "list of Ohio public libraries" article - to me, a list of non-notable things is almost as bad as individual articles. Wikipedia is not a directory. --Brianyoumans 18:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but such an article could be more than a list. Presuming reliable independent sources are found, a discussion of the state library system including (and not limited to) a list would be encyclopedic. Shimeru 22:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My impression of how libraries are organized is that most areas started with local libraries, and only much later developed regional and state systems - and often only to provide services such as inter-library loan. You could certainly talk about the history of libraries in a particular state, but there would be a lot of broad generalizations, and discussing them as a 'system' might be rather stretching it. Nine tenths of the funding, control, and activity is still on the local level. --Brianyoumans 23:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and allow the Project team to decide- I say let the WikiProject Ohio team decide how to handle this. They may opt for a more consolidated article or merging the article with an article about the ___location the library is in. That aside, the WikiProject Ohio team did request that this article (and several others) be written, so obviously not everyone views this as "non-notable." I would prefer to see the articles remain and expanded with more history and background. --JonRidinger 01:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Sharkface217 05:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, suggest individual noms, although i don't think any of these would fail to meet the required standard for media attention. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, this is a perfect example of a correct mass nomination (very similar articles about very similar subjects), so no need to make individual AfD's. No indication of notability as would be indicated by WP:V sources. I don't mind if this is made by an individual editor or by the members of a project: while the project members are perfectly free to defend the articles by showing that they are notable by providing us good sources to indicate that these libraries have any distinguishing features beyond existing, there is no reason to keep articles only because they are made by the members of a project. On the contarry, they may well lack the impartiality and distance needed to look at these articles and subjects on an AfD. This post[1] on the Project Talk page is not acceptable. Fram 14:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Fram and Jayron. Also, please recongnise that everyone can take part in discussions and being part of a project does not imply better judgement. Inner Earth 16:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. No larger significance to society. They're important as a group, but not individually notable, just as having good transit in a city is important, but individual roads are not noteworthy. --Improv 20:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All into their respective communities articles. NeoJustin 22:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being a stub is not a reason for deletion. Every library is unique, and the fact that published references are missing from these articles does not mean that such references do not exist. Libraries often have collections about their communities or specific topics which are not duplicated elsewhere, such as Mount Allison University's collection of 19th-century and early 20th-century high school trigonometry textbooks, or the Toronto Reference Library's impressive Sherlock Holmes collection. In some cases, such a collection was built by a private collector and was later donated or bequeathed to the library, and bears the donor's name. See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandler Public Library.

In general, I think that Wikipedia deletion process throws away a lot of good, or at least salvageable, articles, and that the damage to the encyclopedia and to the morale of individual editors caused mass deletions does outweighs any benefit. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all for this and similar, though there will be a few about which assertations of notability can be made, the better precedent is to merge unless others appropriate. I note that all such libraries can be easily found in web search engines, and the information on their own web sites is probably better than anything we excerpt here. DGG 08:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all mass afd nominations are in poor form, allow the wikiproject to continue its work.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong on both accounts: mass nominations are accepted standard procedure, and a project doesn't decide which articles are kept and which deleted (although their input as to why they feel any particular article should be kept can of course be valuable). So, do you have anything to say about these articles, or can your opinion (and all similar ones) be ignored as not discussing the merits of the articles wrt policies and guidelines? Fram 20:26, 14 December 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adams_County_Public_Library&oldid=1137539648"