Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilmette 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 Keep as the article has been cleaned up.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wilmette Public Library

• Delete: Non-notable public library. I haven't found any notability guidelines for libraries but, from searching on Google, this appears to be no different than any other public library. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep — It's not necessarily un-notable, but it would definitely need some expansion by the person who started the article. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 05:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Any institution that merely fulfills its institutional goals and does so in an ordinary way is one that is not noted in its field, is not "notable." This came from 1901, and there are thousands with Carnegie grants. Although the article is written well enough, the institution isn't of a high enough profile. Geogre 14:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A library is like a school - it can have a profound effect on thousands of people who pass through it. Disk space is cheap. Markb 16:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete'. Not notable. We would have over 100,000 more articles if we made an article on every random library. --Nishkid64 21:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I agree that libraries are very important, and if this is the only library that serves that city, then I agree it should be included. However, if it is one branch of all the city's libraries, I do not think that if a library is just one branch out of several in a city that every branch should be included (see San Antonio Public Library). will381796 21:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: By this logic, should we also have an article for the post office of each town that has only one? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Commment That's a good point that you make. A post office is also very important to a community, and yet, not every one has an article. It seems to me as though its a bit of hypocrisy within the wikipedia community in that schools merely need to be verified as existing in order to get an article, while everything else has to be verified and notable. I do not think that being verifiable also confers notability, which is apparently what many people believe. I have a big problem with the inclusion of every school just as long as you can verify that it exists. I believe that schools should only be included if they are notable for some reason. See WP:SCHOOLS. But concensus among wikipedians and apparent precedent states that all schools are notable. While I strongly disagree with that, I alone cannot change wikipedian policy or guidelines. If all schools deserve an article, then at least the main library serving a city is important enough to deserve an article. And maybe even the post office serving the community... will381796 22:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• WP:SCHOOLS is not an accepted policy and schools are frequently deleted for being non-notable. JChap2007 14:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Typical suburban library. Nothing notable. JChap2007 14:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article contains no assertion of notability. That the community is currently making the wrong decisions and keeping school articles not worthy of inclusion is no reason to expand that to town halls, mayors, libraries, post offices, and all the other ordinary local institutions of daily life. GRBerry 15:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Architecturally notable building, citizens apparently willing to pass bond issues for any needed improvements or expansions, extremely high 94% of residents have library cards, per capita circulation is very high 23. They are a far above average library. This is the only library in the Village of Wilmette, and with its cultural programs it appears to be a vital part of the community. Edison 22:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep primarily per Edison, not to mention the fallcious statements made by JChap2007 are not helpful. Silensor 00:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Edison. Vegaswikian 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Edison, but strongly disagree with the all libraries are notable crowd, and particularly with Markb, by whose definition of notability every billboard advertisement would be notable so we could have Chivas Regal billboard on the corner of 3rd and Main and other similarly "notable" articles. Carlossuarez46 18:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Well I'm glad this article was fleshed out but it's too bad it took an AFD to make it happen. It didn't sound any more notable than the corner bookstore when I first ran across it. Nice job fixing it up... —Wknight94 (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It was created at 22:12 on Aug 19 and the AfD was 02:00 on Aug 20. Many articles start as a mere stub and get expanded by the original or other editors. The alternative is to create the article in a word processor, then import it "full grown," which sometimes makes readers suspect it is copied from some other (copyrighted) source if it reads too well and is too long when newborn. Edison 19:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I edit in user-area sandbox areas and initiate pages full-grown all the time and have never been accused of copyvio. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:04, 24 August 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.