Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halifax North Memorial 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 Halifax Public Libraries. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax North Memorial Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This speedied article was returned identically within minutes of deletion. There is no notability either asserted or present, no reliable sources, no verifiability and apparently no intention to work within Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you look for any sources? Not everyone understands our policies right off the bat, just because someone didn't know to cite sources doesn't mean they don't exist, note that an effort is made to cite sources, albeit they all seem to be published by the library. Your nomination just seems to find fault with the article for not being very good yet, rather than provide any evidence it couldn't be improved, the latter being the actual criteria for deletion. At any rate, it looks like a copyvio and I can't find any decent sources... but your nomination seemed a bit rude and off-base, even if this is probably an article that should be deleted. --Rividian (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks for sharing your opinions. If you have one that's relevant to the topic of the AfD, please feel free to contribute it. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why this level of rudeness and snark is called for. My comment had everything to do with this AFD. --Rividian (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Having read the article, there is nothing notable here -- it is just another branch library with the normal services being offered. And adding sources is not going to make it notable. It could simply be a line a two under some main article on the Halifax Public Library System. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Halifax Public Libraries exists so this page could just redirect there. --Rividian (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Halifax Public Libraries. A branch library does not have inherent notability. Edison2 (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. No indication of why this particular branch is notable. Ged UK (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• rd as above Notability is not inherited benjicharlton (talk) 07:47, 29 August 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.