Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevens 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 keep all. No prejudice to separate renominations. Tim Song (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stevens Memorial Library

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

I don't believe we consider small-town libraries like these inherently notable, and there's no assertion of notability for any of these. I've searched for a number of them and generally only found a website with hours, staff, etc. Should any of these later turn out to be notable, recreating them from reliable sources will not be a big deal, but for now, there's no need to keep around a slew of stubs on libraries that are apparently not notable. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Comment So you're assuming they are all nonnotable because you searched generally for a couple? Most libraries are included in town histories, like the main nom here, passing mention here, apparently it also has the original collection of some poet Anne_Bradstreet flickr pics [1]. That's barely scratching the surface.--Savonneux (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That might be wrong library, not sure... Town names change so much. My point remains though.--Savonneux (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What you turned up are passing mentions that can easily be recorded in the articles on the towns themselves, as indeed they are. They certainly don't meet WP:GNG requirements for stand-alone articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasnt trying very hard. --Savonneux (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all This is several litters of "Kittens" that were brought into the world on May 18 and left for others to take care of [2]. I've looked at them and they're all the same: "The Ashby Free Public Library is a public library in Ashby, Massachusetts.", "The Attleboro Public Library is a public library in Attleboro, Massachusetts", "The Avon Public Library is a public library in Avon, Massachusetts", "The Ayer Library is a public library in Ayer, Massachusetts", etc. Betcha can't guess the contents of the article about the Bedford Free Public Library was... A mass nomination is appropriate in this case and I'm glad it happened before the next batch of contributions. Although stubs are acceptable for topics that are inherently notable (i.e., they don't have to show notability), libraries are not inherently notable. There is no accomplishment in making lots of little articles. Savonneux makes a case that there will be more added to the Stevens Memorial Library, and if someone wants to do someone else's homework (Sav is under no obligation to do so) on a page, great, but how many of these are there-- 40? 50? Please don't create articles if you have no intention of working on them. Mandsford 22:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all since the nomination is defective. The nominator admits failing to search for evidence of notability for each one before the mass nomination Come back with ones where you have followed WP:BEFORE. Some small town libraries may well be notable, architecturally or from having programs or collections which have gained significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Handwaving is not a substitute for searching for references. Edison (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so let's say I have searched for all of them in the meantime and found no indication of notability for any of them. What's your next argument for retention? Remember WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". That editor has so far not supplied any evidence of notability, and in its absence, we must assume non-notability and delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - More hand waving? Your nomination said "I've searched for a number of them," which explicitly says you failed to search for all of them for evidence of notibility, which makes this a disruptive and bad-faith mass nomination. I find it difficult to believe that you actually did the research required. Individual nominations are more appropriate. It is not true that all libraries of medium-sized or small towns are inherently non-notable. Edison (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Useful information that will be of service to future users. No reason to delete: nothing is being sold or hyped. Carrite (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ITSUSEFUL, and please show how any of these meet WP:N. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an absolutely invalid mass nomination. Each article must be considered on its own merits. Carrite (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We allow bundling of nominations for a reason, and you have a week to consider each one. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: I'm afraid I'm with Edison. Nom doesn't indicate that he's made any attempt at all to find sources for these articles, as deletion policy requires him to do before nomination. That many of them would probably fail of notability doesn't change the fact that he should have tried to find out first. I do agree with Mansford's sentiments about creating articles you have no intention of improving, but the intent of an article creator to improve or not forms no valid ground to delete. Ravenswing 13:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. I've looked; same result. Any further arguments for keeping this slew of substubs on non-notable libraries? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The bundled nomination is appropriate, considering that this is a bundle of articles. I'd point out that Biruitorul gave the article's creator the benefit of the doubt, waiting ten days to see if User:M2545 intended to do more with these before bringing them to the forum, even though the history suggested a pattern of disruptive editing. I see some arguments to the effect that we should have 20 separate discussions to respond to, but do the rest of you really want that? If the procedural objections are made in hopes that perhaps it would deter Biru, I'd be more than happy to assist him in renominating each of these separately. We've been through this before with the User:Groubani articles, and if that's what must be done, so be it. Still, isn't it somewhat ironic that a person will be spending more time on the discussion of one page, then M2545 spent on all 20 pages combined? Mandsford 18:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist for another 7 days Too important an issue for a handful of people to decide. We're talking about dozens of articles kept or thrown into the book burning bonfire. If the topic of small town libraries is junk then it may qualify for the trash but we need to think this through carefully. Goldamania (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind if the debate lasts two or even three weeks. But we're actually talking about two dozen articles (not "dozens"), and these are "articles" only in the loosest sense of the word ("X is a library in Y, Massachusetts"). If some are found to be notable even after being deleted, then restarting them from reliable sources won't be a problem (they'll have to be, anyway, since this encyclopedia relies on sourced material to indicate notability, and these "articles" make no attempt to show notability), and if any are found notable during this discussion, I'll gladly strike them from my nomination. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since this is mostly about User:M2545, than the actual articles, why hasnt someone notified him/her of it? --Savonneux (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't suggest that bundled nominations are inappropriate, as a surprising number of editors do, when deletion policy explicitly encourages them; this is the sort of instance where it's appropriate to do so. But that being said, excuse me? The nom neither performed any research on any of these articles and didn't inform the article creator?? (As it happens, I just did.) Sorry, no. That's inappropriate, and it is unacceptable. Ravenswing 11:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, now, enough of the hyperventilating. I researched enough of them to get an idea of what was going on, and within the first day I researched them all. Can we do away with the feigned outrage and actually consider the nominations on the merits? As I said, I'll willingly strike any libraries found to be notable, but so far, that hasn't happened. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you usually exhibit this degree of condescension in your discussions? (If so, I can scarcely be surprised at you running afoul of RfA.) That being said, it is quite conceivable that the crafters of deletion policy meant what they said when they required nominators to research their nominations prior to filing and inform article creators of such filings. The correct response is "Gee, I'm sorry" rather than "I can't be bothered with such trivialities." I assure you that no part of my reaction to your attitude is feigned, and am comfortable with characterizing this as a bad faith nomination. Ravenswing 14:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And while I'm at it ... let's take the very first one I researched, the Attleboro Public Library article, which I admit I picked because it's a small city rather than a small town. Leaving aside trivial or calendar mentions in local media, which of course don't qualify, I found these articles either about the library or with the library as a substantive element in them, within about three minutes flat. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. This didn't take extraordinary skill or dedication ... just a few minutes marching down Google News hits. Of course, AGF debars me from open speculation about whether the nom's done the research on these he states he has done, but I do sure wonder at his methodology. Ravenswing 14:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, whatever you say. More to the point: 1) One day later, User:M2545 shows no signs of defending these "articles". We'll see if he does show up. 2) Regarding what you found about the Attleboro Public Library, there's hardly enough in there to build an article out of. "Teen breaks into library + Neighboring library loses accreditation + Library renovates building + Library hosts 1920s event + Library puts its old files in order + Library usage jumps at least once in a century of existence + Library encourages residents to read Fahrenheit 451 + Library fixes roof + Gas leaks at library" doesn't really make for a coherent narrative, does it? We do actually need some source(s) that provide(s) a structured narrative about the library, something like this. Let me know if that turns up; otherwise, notability remains unproven. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that's an intriguing notion as to what you think WP:N should be about; feel free to raise that on WP:N's talk page and see if you can get consensus around to your POV. Back to the relevant issue at hand, neither WP:N nor the GNG require a seamless literary narrative. What they require is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That exists for the very first of these articles I researched, and turned up at once. Hm, let's take on the Billerica library next; it's a small city with a population comparable to Attleboro's. There's [12][13][14][15][16], for starters. Quite possibly more than a cursory 90-second search might turn up others. Ravenswing 23:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a practical matter, enough non-trivial coverage of a particular subject needs to exist in order for an actual article to be written about it. No source has devoted significant coverage to the Attleboro Public Library as an institution (as opposed to various minor events happening there during the last 15 years, and which are bound to be reported by the local paper, but which usually pass unnoticed by this encyclopedia). Moreover, based on what you found, you yourself would be unable to write a coherent article about the Attleboro Public Library. (I proved that by summarizing the totally disparate and random mentions you dug up.) That is also the case for the Billerica Public Library, where your sources would give us an article saying "The library had a dynamic director in 2003 + The library was promoting reading in 2006 + The library opposes enforcing some aspects of the Patriot Act + The library received level funding in 2003 + A recovery center was set up at the library last month." ****Again, senseless, and showing that notability just isn't proved. (As it so happens, the history of Billerica Public Library goes back to 1772, and there may well be some extant historiography about it, perhaps on its own shelves, but WP:BURDEN requires positive evidence of claims of notability, not speculation about what may be out there. Like I said earlier, deleting this substub and recreating it later on from reliable sources if someone really pines after it is no big deal – they're all going to have to be rewritten that way in order to survive, since we don't keep articles without further proof of notability unless they fall into a select set of exceptions (say, national or state legislators), public libraries not being one of them.) There are libraries the notability of which is immediately and readily apparent from a variety of reliable sources about them. These happen not to fall into that category. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unbundle and Relist Separately" Edward321 (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In fairness to User:M2545, he or she has added content and sourcing to Jonathan Bourne Public Library. I think that a solution would be for M2545 to have a chance to transfer the rest of the stuff to a user page, maybe called something like User:2545/Libraries in Massachusetts. Like the rest of us, this editor is doing the research and writing during spare time. Overall, userfying gives a person a chance to make better articles. Mandsford 16:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To list them separately may be a good idea. My general approach to these stubs would be to merge then into their respective towns, except for those libraries established to be notable enough for a stand alone article. --Pink Bull 19:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All If appropriate relist individual articles so each can be judged on its individual merits. TJRC (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2010 (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.