Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace A. Dow 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. --jonny-m t 06:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grace A. Dow Memorial Library

Non notable library, with no sources whatsoever, no assertion of notability, no reliable sources, only one external link, only two edits since 2006, excluding this AfD, no substantive edits in a while, no room for growith, original research issues, only things that are at all interesting are that its old, founded in 1899 and that it happens to have TV stations (cable access) within the compound, although those claims are not backed up with any verifiable reliable sources. I say delete it. Myheartinchile (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the interesting things noted by the nominator are probably enough to prove notability. I added a reference. I even saw a reference to the library's auditorium in a New York Times article at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05EFD71039F932A05750C0A965948260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all , although I didn't add that as a reference. --Eastmain (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of verifiable information[1] can be found about this > 100 year old public library. Surely it's an important institution in the community. Pburka (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is sourced and asserts notability, contrary to the nom's comments. This is another example of why its important that users do at least minimal research before nominating articles for deletion. Just because you don't currently see sources placed in the article, that doesn't mean they don't exist. --Oakshade (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found and added above. It's history brings it beyond a run-of-the-mill local library and the RS coverage meets WP:ORG _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:N and WP:ORG. The NYT story is about this town and briefly mentions a news conference which was held in the library, and isn't about the library itself. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Valley Public Library is a relevant previous AfD. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article of a library was deleted in the past means this library article must be deleted? Curious WP:ALLORNOTHING argument. There are more secondary sources on this library than the NYT article you mentioned. --Oakshade (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and more here as well. The existence of event listings doesn't invalidate every other piece of RS coverage. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the page requires work but sources are available to meet WP:N and the page contains. encyclopaedic content. TerriersFan (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small city public libraries are not generally notable, and there is nothing here to shown that this one is. The NYT article being asserted as a source is the very model of incidental mention, just as Nick observes above. the other references are equally weak--just events held at the library. Libraries host non-=notable community events, usually several a week. Being a community meeting place is not notable, even if the internet provides links from local sources. American Libraries includes every head librarian appointment that gets sent to it--they're just directory listings. And the institution that happens to have employed a bank robber does not therefore become notable. I would very strongly oppose extending the practice with high schools to other local institutions--high schools area special case, because of the likely alumni and awards for any one that is long established. This does not happen to libraries (or fire departments, and so on. All very important in their area, but of no encyclopedic interest. No number of local community listings can make this notable unless something notable happens. If this is what 2RSs=N is interpreted as meaning, its time we got rid of it. But it doesnt--tit requires significant discussion of the subject, andthat is nto present in any of the sources. DGG (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get the "2RSs=N" notion from? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are two books on the library - both published by the library (written by staff ? - can't tell). All other mentions I can find are incidental or directory listings. Simply seems to be insufficient written by independant reliable sources to write a neutral point of view article. Needs someone local with access to printed records to see if the other sources that Google books reports are more than peripheral mentions - Peripitus (Talk) 03:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has secondary source coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2008 (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.