Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandler Public Library
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 with Chandler, Arizona (which I've done). Proto::► 10:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Chandler Public Library
non notable public library system in Arizona; no particular claim to notability that I can see. Previous prod removed by User:TruthbringerToronto. Brianyoumans 08:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep It's a Public library in Arizona. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- And my left big toe is a body part. It still doesn't get an article. What is your point? - Mgm|(talk) 12:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to wherever it is located. - Mgm|(talk) 12:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Chandler AZ or add content and references to show notability. Edison 15:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Chandler, Arizona], or expand the article. (cf. proposed WP:LOCAL).-- danntm T C 17:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Every library is different. The Chandler library has been involved with an innovative program to promote literacy and library use among people who live in public housing, for example. Maintaining a separate article for a library makes it easier to find information on the library by searching from a list or category of public libraries. Some libraries serve multiple municipalities and therefore don't merge well into a single town's article. In general, libraries have collections of books and other materials about their local areas that are not duplicated elsewhere, and the Chandler library presumably has a significant amount of information related to Chandler that may represent a notable collection, and as well a resource that a Wikipedian living in Chandler could draw upon to create articles based on print sources which are unavailable online. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge It is a public library. Sharkface217 05:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Chandler, Arizona]. I'm unable to find any useful sources for making notability claims but a town's libraries are a reasonable thing to have covered in a town's article. JoshuaZ 05:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Merge or delete, whichever seems most appropriate. I don't really get what TruthbringerToronto tries to say here. Because someone in the Chandler region may use the library (or more specifically, some books, magazines, ... in the library) to compose articles for Wikipedia, we should keep the library article? I thought our policies indicated that subjects had to be the subjects of multiple verifiable sources by reputable publishers, not that the subject only had to be useful (or "different": every person is different, every snowflake is different, that's no reason to have an article). The sources added are interesting, but for me still too weak to keep this as a separate article (the first one is a very short mention, and the second is more of a directory entry, the Chandler public library being one of the more than 600 repositories in Arizona indexed on this site). While this library is more important than the usual village library, it still is not verifiably important enough to have its own article. Fram 14:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Edison, JoshuaZ. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I was referring specifically to the library's special collections of local material that could not be easily located elsewhere, such as local history materials and hard-copy or microfilmed back volumes of local newspapers. Most libraries have such collections. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I agree: every city and town (of some size) has a public library, and almost all of them feature collections of material on local subjects. Every town also has telephone directories, published by the local phone company (and, in recent years, other companies)... should we have special articles on them, or should that info be merged to the local articles so that Wikipedia researchers can find them? I would argue that these sort of things are so common and similar from town to town as to be non notable. --Brianyoumans 00:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment . No, the special collections of each library are unique and not purely local, such as Mount Allison University's collection of 19th-century and early 20th-century high school trigonometry textbooks, or the Toronto Reference Library's impressive Sherlock Holmes collection. In some cases, such a collection was built by a private collector and was later donated or bequeathed to the library, and bears the donor's name. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- If no one has talked about the collection in any detail in non-trivial sources it is very hard to see it as having any significiant notability. There's no reason not to include a note about the library details in the main articles but we simply don't have enough for a full article. JoshuaZ 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment . No, the special collections of each library are unique and not purely local, such as Mount Allison University's collection of 19th-century and early 20th-century high school trigonometry textbooks, or the Toronto Reference Library's impressive Sherlock Holmes collection. In some cases, such a collection was built by a private collector and was later donated or bequeathed to the library, and bears the donor's name. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I agree: every city and town (of some size) has a public library, and almost all of them feature collections of material on local subjects. Every town also has telephone directories, published by the local phone company (and, in recent years, other companies)... should we have special articles on them, or should that info be merged to the local articles so that Wikipedia researchers can find them? I would argue that these sort of things are so common and similar from town to town as to be non notable. --Brianyoumans 00:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I was referring specifically to the library's special collections of local material that could not be easily located elsewhere, such as local history materials and hard-copy or microfilmed back volumes of local newspapers. Most libraries have such collections. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete If we allow every public library to get its own article, we will be overrun with articles from the millions of libraries around the world. FirefoxMan 00:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If those hypothetical articles adequately demonstrate the uniqueness of each library, then the articles would make the encyclopedia better. In practice, if a library is not much different than other libraries, people are unlikely to contribute an article about it. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams County Public Library. --Brianyoumans 17:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If those hypothetical articles adequately demonstrate the uniqueness of each library, then the articles would make the encyclopedia better. In practice, if a library is not much different than other libraries, people are unlikely to contribute an article about it. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Merge or delete per Fram. Inner Earth 11:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
