Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitsap regional 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 Keep or No Consensus to delete or merge that's for sure. (Non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kitsap regional library

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

Non-notable local library; perhaps a merger into the WP article on Kitsap County is possible? Ecoleetage (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came up with about nine [1] but they all seemed to be pretty much local news reports and as such not exactly independant? But if you think one of those hits might be WP:RS then add it in as a reference.--Sting Buzz Me... 02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/Weak on the one hand there is some RS coverage, but most is name drop mentions of people working there and things they are notable for. On the other hand, it's a library system and I think one article on the system rather than an article on each of the non-notable local libraries is probably a better option. I think it needs better sourcing to be a keep, but I'm not seeing it as a delete/merge either because there's probably a good argument to keep. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 05:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC) change to keep, see below TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not fussed if it is kept. Currently a no consensus which = default keep anyhow. I agree that article needs better sourcing.--Sting Buzz Me... 08:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article makes no claim of notability at all. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the interest of full disclosure, I've requested the input from a librarian here on Wikipedia to see that perspective. I don't see this as canvassing since as I said above, I'm fairly neutral on this TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 01:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I think that's me Cari was referring to.) If we accept school district articles,we should accept regional libraries like this. They are exactly analogous. Obviously more information can and must be added. What I would definitely oppose is articles on the individual town libraries, unless there is something strikingly notable to be said--I don't think they belong in Wikipedia just as I dont think elementary or junior high school articles usually belong. (The most likely notability for any of these would be the historic nature of the institution) Best way of keeping them out is to allow articles like this one--same argument as I use for school districts.DGG (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep: Libraries are like grocery stores, office buildings, and restaurants; they're buildings that serve a specific purpose. While its purpose may be notable, every building that serves that purpose generaly is not. With nine libraries throughout the county, fairly good chance of this becoming sourced.--Hu12 (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing rules out having an article on a library system, or even an individual library, if sources are available from which meaningful content can be added. I'd delete the article for now, awaiting the possible arrival of sources in the future. There is so little information in the present article, it's almost not worth reading it. You'd be better off going to the library system's own web site. For an example of a decently written library article (that I just happen to have helped with slightly :-) see Whitby Public Library. It has some sources and it's got quirky historical information. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment and change to keep I've added some sourcing and while it's not iron clad, I think it's enough to get it through. It's similar to school district sourcing in that it establishes some information about its operations. I found more from the local paper and will try to expand more on it TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Useful information --Kyknos (talk) 04:53, 23 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kitsap_regional_library&oldid=1069817719"