Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castro Valley 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 merge to Alameda County Library. I think there's consistent consensus that such local branches aren't separately notable, butthere's some material here worth merging. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Castro Valley Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This branch I don't think is notable enough for its own article, the article is a little bit spammy. I think this is a case of redirect without merging. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve through normal editing. I can't understand how an article about a public library can be considered "spammy". Public libraries have nothing to sell, and don't benefit from driving Internet traffic to their websites. As for whether this particular library is notable, that decision should be made based on what reliable sources say, not on what the nominator "thinks". Cullen328 (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep GNews reveals more than enough reliable, secondary coverage to justify an article, per WP:LOCAL and the general notability guidelines, at that. That said, while I think the nominator uses the wrong word to describe the problem with the article (it's not "spammy," really) the article is certainly unencyclopedic in several places and reads a bit like a PR piece put out by the library. Clearly, though, that's an editorial concern and not an AfD issue. I see plenty of GNews evidence that this library is locally notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - None of the sources in the article constitute significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and my good faith searches have been unable to find others beyond reports of budget allocations to the library and programs associated with it. The article therefore fails WP:N and should be deleted as un-notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) - Ginsengbomb, I got GNews hits too but they weren't significant coverage - would you care to link the particular articles that you say support notability? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a case of differing interpretations of what constitutes "coverage." I am looking at the same articles. If I saw one one-off article about "budget allocations" I'd be inclined to agree, but what I see in GNews is ~10 years of steady coverage of various budgetary and program allocations to the library, and all of these articles are exclusively about library programs, library improvements, etc. (meaning they are, in essence, about the library). Here's a more recent one: [1]. One could advance a technical argument that the topic should be "Budgetary Allocations to the Castro Valley Library," because there is clearly enough coverage of that specific topic to warrant notability, but I think that's pretty silly (and I'm not saying that's what you're arguing -- I'm taking your argument to a ludicrous conclusion, half to be humorous and half to make a point :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd see this kind of coverage as falling under WP:MILL. The nature of government budgetary process means that any government-funded entity will be the subject of significant coverage in reliable independent sources (the appropriation bill and its surrounding scrutiny, if nothing else) and yet the consensus of the Wikipedia community is that not every government-funded entity is notable. The standard must be that the coverage of the subject is more than merely routine coverage. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the non poorly written parts to Alameda County Library, as the article stands right now, there isn't enough non WP:ROUTINE coverage for a stand up article. There's no point in deleting this article if there is a place to merge the content. Secret ^account 17:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a standard library. Nothing especially notable about it.   Will Beback  talk  01:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This library doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines. E. Fokker (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's the Castro Valley branch of the Alameda County Library System, and branches are not presumed notable. There doesn't appear to be anything that makes this one noteworthy enough for an article separate from the rest of the system. Wikipedia is not a webhost for branch hours or upcoming events. That's accomplished by putting the link [2] in the article about the library system, not by using a Wikipedia page as a companion to a blog. Mandsford 21:55, 13 January 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.