Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Valley 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 delete. Neıl ☎ 10:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Indian Valley Public Library
No evidence of notability. Just another public library like thousands of others. Rtphokie (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
*Speedy Delete - db-context! Other then "this is a library that is here" no notibility, no content or references. Not requiring it's own page.--Pmedema (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Due to recent changes forced by the Afd, I change my mind to keep. The article has progressed. I hope that is continues to grow from the people who wish to keep it.--Pmedema (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete the "article" is basically just an address, and extremely few libraries are notable anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Redirectto Pennsylvania library system. useful redirect. --W.marsh 20:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)- Keep per Noroton. --W.marsh 17:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, then Redirect per W.marsh. There is no individual notability to this branch of library, and there's no sense in keeping the history accordingly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:ORG guidelines for notability, and evidence of it is here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noroton (talk • contribs) 23:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've added enough sources to meet Wikipedia notability standards in WP:N and WP:ORG. Libraries, like some schools and nearly all hospitals, are important parts of their communities, this one more than most libraries. It's been the subject of substantial coverage from The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Morning Call of Allenstown, and The Intelligencer of Doylestown. It is the venue for speakers, meetings and other events, shows movies and hosts exhibits. This library seems more notable than most, and as you can tell from reading the article, the coverage has provided extensive information. Noroton (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I hate to do this under the circumstances, but I'm going to disagree and maintain my !vote, though it admittedly weakens. Most of those articles feel more like advertisements for the library, even for the ones you included in the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Three established, independent newspapers think enough of a library so that we have significant coverage from them, and that feels like advertising? Sometimes news reporters write positive stories, sometimes they write negative stories. It usually depends on a neutral, "objective" look at the subject. I left out the articles about the guy who exposed himself in the parking lot and got arrested (coverage from the same newspapers) because it didn't seem worth mentioning (as, say, a murder or repeated crimes would be). I think "advertising" is a judgment that needs proof in order to be credible, and, in fact, if the "advertising" is from multiple, independent, reliable sources, it's kosher for WP:Notability. Noroton (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Noroton, how about providing the links? I mean, sure, I don't doubt they exist, but which ones are you referring to? Also note that, as you are a long time Wikipedian, it's probably superfluous to note that being derisive and otherwise lawyering here in the AFD won't help your case. I wanna see the goods or I ain't gonna change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- (1)I get access to newsbank.com through my local library card (not anywhere near this library, by the way) and I don't think the link works behind newsbank's subscription wall, but I'll add the links I have and let's see what happens (I suspect that newsbank will either block the link immediately or after a short while). I always provide footnotes and, whenever available, links, when I edit something. But Wikipedia doesn't require links. Sometimes I create footnotes from physical newspaper clippings or books where no link is available at all. You really should be able to point to some credible reason why you doubt a source, otherwise it sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (2) Specifically, I'm talking about the footnote, "Coffey, Greg, "Like community, library on path of growth", The Intelligencer of Doylestown, Pennsylvania, January 16, 2005, accessed via newsbank.com" as having significant information on the library. Sources from other footnotes also provide detailed information about specific aspects of the library and examples of the types of events there. (3) Be specific yourself: Which one of the four types of wikilawyering described at WP:WIKILAWYER are you accusing me of? What I'm doing is giving a detailed case, not using legalistic language or using the words rather than the spirit of the policies. I'm saying that some editors have misconstrued what WP:N says. (4) Don't be so sensitive: I'm attacking your arguments, not you or anybody else. I am describing what you're doing wrong in making the case that you make, but that's not any kind of attack on you or your character. (5) I'm sorry I sound derisive. Again, it's directed at arguments, not people, but I'll try to avoid that. I really am sincerely trying to meet editors' objections. Noroton (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm revisiting this here. Is this a branch in a network of libraries (such as what King County Library System operates), or is this a standalone library in a larger system? That might make a decision - an individual branch in a network is rarely notable, but a standalone might win. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- (1)I get access to newsbank.com through my local library card (not anywhere near this library, by the way) and I don't think the link works behind newsbank's subscription wall, but I'll add the links I have and let's see what happens (I suspect that newsbank will either block the link immediately or after a short while). I always provide footnotes and, whenever available, links, when I edit something. But Wikipedia doesn't require links. Sometimes I create footnotes from physical newspaper clippings or books where no link is available at all. You really should be able to point to some credible reason why you doubt a source, otherwise it sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (2) Specifically, I'm talking about the footnote, "Coffey, Greg, "Like community, library on path of growth", The Intelligencer of Doylestown, Pennsylvania, January 16, 2005, accessed via newsbank.com" as having significant information on the library. Sources from other footnotes also provide detailed information about specific aspects of the library and examples of the types of events there. (3) Be specific yourself: Which one of the four types of wikilawyering described at WP:WIKILAWYER are you accusing me of? What I'm doing is giving a detailed case, not using legalistic language or using the words rather than the spirit of the policies. I'm saying that some editors have misconstrued what WP:N says. (4) Don't be so sensitive: I'm attacking your arguments, not you or anybody else. I am describing what you're doing wrong in making the case that you make, but that's not any kind of attack on you or your character. (5) I'm sorry I sound derisive. Again, it's directed at arguments, not people, but I'll try to avoid that. I really am sincerely trying to meet editors' objections. Noroton (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Noroton, how about providing the links? I mean, sure, I don't doubt they exist, but which ones are you referring to? Also note that, as you are a long time Wikipedian, it's probably superfluous to note that being derisive and otherwise lawyering here in the AFD won't help your case. I wanna see the goods or I ain't gonna change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Three established, independent newspapers think enough of a library so that we have significant coverage from them, and that feels like advertising? Sometimes news reporters write positive stories, sometimes they write negative stories. It usually depends on a neutral, "objective" look at the subject. I left out the articles about the guy who exposed himself in the parking lot and got arrested (coverage from the same newspapers) because it didn't seem worth mentioning (as, say, a murder or repeated crimes would be). I think "advertising" is a judgment that needs proof in order to be credible, and, in fact, if the "advertising" is from multiple, independent, reliable sources, it's kosher for WP:Notability. Noroton (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I hate to do this under the circumstances, but I'm going to disagree and maintain my !vote, though it admittedly weakens. Most of those articles feel more like advertisements for the library, even for the ones you included in the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not at all notable. Most libraries in western countries run various activities and these occassionally get written up in the local press so there's nothing special about this library. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Under your personal definition of notable, it isn't notable. Under Wikipedia's definition of notable, it's notable. At WP:DGFA, closing admins are instructed to discount arguments against policy and guidelines. Noroton (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I am aware of WP:NOTE and it was the basis of my vote. I don't see how stories about routine activities at a library published in local newspapers constitute the "significant coverage" WP:NOTE requires or how these activities are "worthy of notice", which is another requirement. Likewise, I don't see how this article meets WP:ORG as the references are covering routine and essentially trivial activities which are conducted in most libraries. More generally, the number of Google hits isn't by itself proof of any notability - those stories don't say that the library has been recognised as a leader in its field or that anything noteworthy has happened there.
-
- In cases like this where automatic notability doesn't apply the references need to do more than prove that the subject of the article exists and operates - they need to demonstrate why it's important enough to belong in an encyclopaedia. Has the library been recognised as being particularly innovative or successful by one of the relevant professional associations? --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I went back and reread WP:NOTE, please do the same, particularly "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. "Significant" clearly refers to the amount of coverage. When you write "the references need to do more than prove that the subject of the article exists and operates" you're right, but only in that the references need to provide some significant amount of detail about the subject; you're incorrect that they have to prove anything else at all in terms of establishing notability. WP:NOTE also explicitly states in the first paragraph: The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with notability. And WP:NOTE also states: "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. To recap, WP:NOTE is about objective evidence concerning the amount of coverage, without regard to "subjective personal" judgment on what has enough "fame" or "importance" to be worthy of an article. Certainly a judgment call needs to be made as to what amount of coverage is "trivial" or "significant", but I don't think anyone can deny that there is a significant coverage from a reliable, independent source here (in fact, from more than one). Oh, and my citing Ghits was just to show that plenty of sources actually existed, not to say that the number of them proved notability. Since I've actually now added sources, that early point is now irrelevant. Noroton (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree with that interpretation of WP:NOTE. A large volume of potential references which only cover routine and trivial topics does not constitute "substantive" coverage - my Oxford English Dictionary defines 'substantive' in this context as "having a firm or solid basis; important, significant;". Local press stories about reading groups being run and car parks sometimes being full don't fall into this category as they don't demonstrate that this library does anything other than provide routine services to its customers. As local libraries are not automatically notable, such references do not establish notability - WP:ORG is pretty clear on the point that "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". Moreover, the basic claim to notability here seems to be that this library is unusually successful. However, none of the references appear to prove this (as I suggested above, is there a report of the library winning a significant award? - its' website doesn't state that it has), and original research is needed to link them together and claim that they mean anything - how does this library compare to the library in the next suburb? - is it also busy? As a sidenote, I would suggest that you stop posting uncivil comments which accuse other experienced editors of acting in bad faith and ignorance when they state that this article is on a non-notable topic. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I went back and reread WP:NOTE, please do the same, particularly "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. "Significant" clearly refers to the amount of coverage. When you write "the references need to do more than prove that the subject of the article exists and operates" you're right, but only in that the references need to provide some significant amount of detail about the subject; you're incorrect that they have to prove anything else at all in terms of establishing notability. WP:NOTE also explicitly states in the first paragraph: The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with notability. And WP:NOTE also states: "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. To recap, WP:NOTE is about objective evidence concerning the amount of coverage, without regard to "subjective personal" judgment on what has enough "fame" or "importance" to be worthy of an article. Certainly a judgment call needs to be made as to what amount of coverage is "trivial" or "significant", but I don't think anyone can deny that there is a significant coverage from a reliable, independent source here (in fact, from more than one). Oh, and my citing Ghits was just to show that plenty of sources actually existed, not to say that the number of them proved notability. Since I've actually now added sources, that early point is now irrelevant. Noroton (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- In cases like this where automatic notability doesn't apply the references need to do more than prove that the subject of the article exists and operates - they need to demonstrate why it's important enough to belong in an encyclopaedia. Has the library been recognised as being particularly innovative or successful by one of the relevant professional associations? --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- When did I accuse you or anyone of acting in bad faith? I'm telling you that you have to follow WP:N or WP:ORG. Your response that you're only interpreting it differently. I'm saying cannot intepret these guidelines to mean the opposite of what they mean, and I'm showing you exactly how you're doing that. It isn't a personal attack, it's an attack on your argument. You can do or say all sorts of wrongheaded things and do them in good faith (we all do). I don't need to or want to question your good faith, and I haven't.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This is not a matter of interpretation, just accurate reading of what is clearly stated: WP:ORG states in the first paragraph in the "Primary criterion" section that there are three classes of sources: those that give substantial, non-substantial or trivial coverage. You cannot read that paragraph any other way. It is only in describing the sources' "depth of coverage" that the word "substantial" is used in WP:ORG (and only in describing depth of coverage that "substantive" and significant" come up at WP:NOTE). And you can't interpret "substantive coverage" in a way that directly contravenes WP:N's definition of "significant coverage": "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. If you want to argue that "substantive coverage" is really different from "significang coverage", then you're fighting the whole spirit and context of WP:ORG and WP:N, as well as the specific statement at the top of WP:ORG that smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations. Your chosen dictionary definition isn't allowed to trump that.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The first footnote in this article has "depth of coverage" which is substantial. Footnotes 4, 6, and 7 are not sources giving "substantial" coverage, but neither are they "trivial" coverage, which WP:ORG specifically describes with examples such as "newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories". Wikipedia does not label all "routine" coverage as trivial the way you do, and in interpreting WP:ORG or WP:N, you're not allowed to stretch your definition of "trivial" so far that it breaks the definition Wikipedia gives you. (Footnote 5 could be interpreted as "trivial coverage", by the way.) Those nonsubstantial, nontrivial sources can establish notability ("If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability"). So we have an independent, reliable source that is substantial/substantive/significant along with multiple (a total of three, although two would be multiple), independent, reliable sources that are not trivial. Again, none of this is a matter of interpretation. All of it refers to depth of coverage. Noroton (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- You immediately accused both me and Capitalistroadster of using a "personal definition of notable" rather than the relevant guideline when we voted that the article is on a non-notable topic. Now that I've identified the specific parts of this guideline I think that the article doesn't meet you're claiming that I'm "fighting the whole spirit and context of WP:ORG and WP:N" (eg, that I'm rejecting a key and widely accepted guideline) and that hence only your interpretation of this guideline can be correct here. Footnotes 4, 6 and 7 are hidden behind a log-in and only reference trivia - hosting a common type of discussion group, having goats on the lawn once and having a display commemorating WWII in 1997 (all of which were apparently organised and run by groups other than the actual library, which seems to have merely provided the space for them) are routine kinds of activities for libraries and don't establish any notability.--Nick Dowling (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Summary of my case:The Coffey footnote (Footnote 1) means the article meets WP:N and WP:ORG by providing a reliable, independent source giving "significant", "substantive", and "substantial" information on the subject, which is all that the clear language of WP:ORG actually requires (WP:N says "multiple sources are generally preferred", and WP:ORG requires only a single source). Although it's unnecessary, the alternative standard in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criterion allows multiple, nontrivial, reliable, independent sources to create notability. This is done with: Melada (Footnote 8: Mideast lecture protest against the library) and Cascerceri (Footnote 4: Socrates Cafe), and I would argue, the Piro (#6: goats) and Phelan (#7: WWII exhibit) are nontrivial, because the depth of coverage is more than a passing mention. It is irrelevant to a deletion discussion that there are other footnotes and other material in the article. Noroton (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reply to Nick Dowling: Disagreeing with you, even forcefully, is not attacking you. You've described notability standards in ways that don't relate back to Wikipedia's actual notability standards even as interpretations. "Interpretation" isn't another word for "preference", and the actual language and spirit of the guideline must be followed (although you can argue a common-sense exception, you're arguing in effect for nullification). Whether or not you dislike it, your notability standards are personal. When Wikipedia policies and guidelines are clear, not accepting them invites chaos, disruption and waste as editors who try to follow policies become frustrated and leave as they see their work deleted arbitrarily. You're always welcome to try to change the guidelines. Noroton (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- You immediately accused both me and Capitalistroadster of using a "personal definition of notable" rather than the relevant guideline when we voted that the article is on a non-notable topic. Now that I've identified the specific parts of this guideline I think that the article doesn't meet you're claiming that I'm "fighting the whole spirit and context of WP:ORG and WP:N" (eg, that I'm rejecting a key and widely accepted guideline) and that hence only your interpretation of this guideline can be correct here. Footnotes 4, 6 and 7 are hidden behind a log-in and only reference trivia - hosting a common type of discussion group, having goats on the lawn once and having a display commemorating WWII in 1997 (all of which were apparently organised and run by groups other than the actual library, which seems to have merely provided the space for them) are routine kinds of activities for libraries and don't establish any notability.--Nick Dowling (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- The first footnote in this article has "depth of coverage" which is substantial. Footnotes 4, 6, and 7 are not sources giving "substantial" coverage, but neither are they "trivial" coverage, which WP:ORG specifically describes with examples such as "newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories". Wikipedia does not label all "routine" coverage as trivial the way you do, and in interpreting WP:ORG or WP:N, you're not allowed to stretch your definition of "trivial" so far that it breaks the definition Wikipedia gives you. (Footnote 5 could be interpreted as "trivial coverage", by the way.) Those nonsubstantial, nontrivial sources can establish notability ("If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability"). So we have an independent, reliable source that is substantial/substantive/significant along with multiple (a total of three, although two would be multiple), independent, reliable sources that are not trivial. Again, none of this is a matter of interpretation. All of it refers to depth of coverage. Noroton (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Delete. The article fails to establish why this library is notable outside its local area. Capitalistroadster (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Another personal definition of notability. A million Wikipedians can hava a million definitions of notability, but Wikipedia itself has WP:Notability. Before editing or working on an article, should Wikipedia editors try to guess what definitions might be used in AfDs or should they consult WP:Notability and follow that definition? Second option seems more rational. Noroton (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just to belabor the point, from WP:ORG: Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations. Capitalistroadster, your disagreement is with that guideline. Noroton (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Another personal definition of notability. A million Wikipedians can hava a million definitions of notability, but Wikipedia itself has WP:Notability. Before editing or working on an article, should Wikipedia editors try to guess what definitions might be used in AfDs or should they consult WP:Notability and follow that definition? Second option seems more rational. Noroton (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Tentative delete. Is there any way for me to actually review the references? If so, I will review to see if any of the references establishes significant coverage, although with the titles and information in the article I can not say I am hopeful. As it stands, though, the article clearly does not establish notability, per WP:N. To be clear, it the second point of the notability requirements that I, and I believe those above, are objecting to. I see nothing that addresses the actual subject here, instead it is merely events that occurred at the subject. SorryGuy Talk 04:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reviewing the references, I still feel as though mentions are mostly trivial, as expected above. I would however support a merge to the Telford city article. SorryGuy Talk 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Feelings? Mostly trivial? "Mostly" doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not the minumum sourcing is there. But I've said that, demonstrated that and sent you copies of the articles. Proving that the minimum standard is more than met. But mere proof doesn't matter. Don't ask me to send you copies of the articles if you're going to rely on feelings, ask me to send candy and flowers instead of proof. Noroton (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. — from Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. Noroton (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Again, you respond to a vote of non-notability by making uncivil comments and accusing another experienced editor of deliberately ignoring the relevant policies when they decided that this library does not meet the Wikipedia definition of notability. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. — from Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. Noroton (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Feelings? Mostly trivial? "Mostly" doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not the minumum sourcing is there. But I've said that, demonstrated that and sent you copies of the articles. Proving that the minimum standard is more than met. But mere proof doesn't matter. Don't ask me to send you copies of the articles if you're going to rely on feelings, ask me to send candy and flowers instead of proof. Noroton (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2008 (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.
