Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serangoon Public 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 delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serangoon Public Library

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Serangoon Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Cannot see why this passes WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, so a "redirect" or "merge" w/o redirect to Nex, Singapore is out of the question? Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a few days old and contains very little information. Although redirects are WP:CHEAP I don't see the case for having one (no evidence anyone searches for this) nor for a merge (minimal to no mergeable content on the page, and presumably the active editor who just created this could as easily just put the information into that article - if the editors there agree it is notable for that article). -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agree it is not notable. I did search for sources though, and the nom. ought to mention a WP:BEFORE in case there is some notability that is not apparent from the poor state of the article. It gets mentioned in books, but only as a ___location in the same way countless other libraries are mentioned. It also gets mentioned a couple of times for being built on a roof, including this source: [1]. This appears to be its most notable feature, but the mention here is not substantial and does not make it notable. If the building were iconic and listed in some offical database or list of iconic buildings, it would be likely to meet notability guidelines, but I found no evidence that it was. Thus my view is deletion is appropriate. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not seem to have been the subject of significant coverage. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2020 (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.