Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. P. Fisher 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep -- (drini's page|☎) 20:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
L. P. Fisher Public Library[edit]
Looks like a nn library Delete --JAranda | yeah 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Justin Bacon 00:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The main library of a sizeable town, and the building is a historic and well known landmark as well. - SimonP 01:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Barely notable --Rogerd 02:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the city's article and redirect. -- Kjkolb 03:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this public institution which has significant influence in its community. Pburka 03:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge to Woodstock. We don't need articles on every public institution in every minor town; there are 10,000 cities Woodstock's size in the US alone and each and every one of them has a library. Nobody cares what type of wood their interior is decorated in.--Prosfilaes 03:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Interesting architectural article. -- Decumanus 04:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge some of the information. It's more valuable in context - people reading about the town can learn that the library is a historic and well-known landmark. (At least they could if someone edits the material to establish either of those points). Not ALL of it needs merging; listings of the library's holding are pure bibliocruft. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge worth having the information somewhere, although I don't think it matters much where. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 04:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge as per Prosfilaes--inksT 05:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not of sufficient importance to exist on its own, if the current article is anything to go by. The useful information (i.e not the list of holdings) should be merged into the Woodstock, New Brunswick article. Average Earthman 13:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Amren (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This library is notable to its community. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember that in New Brunswick, everything is much smaller and more isolated than in the urbanized areas of the United States and even Canada. Therefore, a small town is much more important there than in other parts of Canada.
- Comment: That's an argument to keep? Just to be clear, you are saying that instututions that would be non-notable elsewhere are notable if they are in small towns in isolated areas? Doesn't that mean fewer people are interested in them? Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember that in New Brunswick, everything is much smaller and more isolated than in the urbanized areas of the United States and even Canada. Therefore, a small town is much more important there than in other parts of Canada.
- Smerge with the town. Get rid of the examples of holdings section. -R. fiend 17:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge to Woodstock. Appears to be relevant to the local community based on the person it's named after. What about the architect? - Mgm|(talk) 20:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge. Not notable enough for its own article; "holdings" section should be dumped and after that it's a stub with little potential to be more. TomTheHand 23:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per Average Earthman. Denni☯ 23:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. I think it establishes notability and belongs. However without a good cleanup, its hard to tell. IF no cleanup, them merge as above. Vegaswikian 05:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- An honest question: how does it establish notability? What is notable about this library?--Prosfilaes 16:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Public Libraries are inherently notable.--Nicodemus75 18:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. A historic public library, with important holdings. --Vsion 19:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge. The information is worth keeping around. And if the information finds its way to the city's article, this remains a good search term. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable. Logophile 15:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles about notable structures are valuable information for a non-paper encyclopedia. Dystopos 16:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is arguing that articles about notable structures belong in any encyclopedia; the subject under debate is whether or not this is a notable library.--Prosfilaes 22:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider the structure itself, built as a free-library at the bequest of the first mayor of Woodstock, handsomely designed by an architect of regional note (G L Fairweather) and in continuous use since 1912 to be a structure of sufficient significance to merit an article in an encyclopedia alongside such institutions as "Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten". Dystopos 23:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It was built by an architect who doesn't have an article, and normally painters and authors (and by extension architects) don't have articles for each and every creation, especially not for a creator of "regional note". 1912 is positively new by some standards; I understand in Hamburg the new town hall dates from the 13th century. --Prosfilaes 00:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You're absolutely right. And Amsterdam's Niewe Kerk is very very old. However the context for this structure is Woodstock, not Hamburg and the context for this article is Wikipedia, not Encarta. We've got an episode-by-episode guide to "Sex and the City", detailed descriptions of minor characters from The Simpsons, and we can afford articles about significant structures in medium-sized towns. Hey and listen, if you want to merge and redirect, that's fine. But AfD isn't the place to do that. Dystopos 13:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- When I said "normally painters and authors (and by extension architects) don't have articles for each and every creation", I was speaking in the context of Wikipedia. Even great authors don't typically have all their books wikified.--Prosfilaes 17:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's also true (unless the author happens to set their novels in the Star Wars universe, of course). This building is more than an example of an architect's capability, however. It is also a local institution and landmark, an example of an important style of architecture, a keeper of locally significant archival collections, and, above all, verifiable and NPOV. Notability is a disputed criterion for deletion. Dystopos 19:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The fish and chips shop outside my house is a "local institution and landmark", the building is ex-government built housing, so it was designed by a famous and well paid architect, a provider of nutrition, a place for the community to meet and exchange information on local events, verifiable (features in the University Student Magazine, which has an online edition), and is totally unsuitable for Wikipedia. Given that the criteria you mention above can qualify an otherwise unsuitable fish and chips shop for inclusion, perhaps they are flawed?--inksT 22:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds like the housing estate itself is probably worthy of an article, with perhaps some mention of the policy regarding the mix of retail and housing that was current at the time and a link to the famous and well-paid architect's biographical article. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all keep busy with constructive additions to the encyclopedia rather than going around deleting everything that isn't of any importance to you. Dystopos 23:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It'd be nice we all kept busy with constructive additions that filled spots in the encyclopedia that were of comparable notability to articles in the encyclopedia, thus creating an encyclopedia that is comprehensive in what it handles, instead of creating articles about things that are just like thousands of others that aren't getting articles.--Prosfilaes 23:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I assure you, the housing estate is not at all article worthy either :) And I'm sure we can agree that removing material from Wikipedia that shouldn't be there is just as constructive as putting stuff in that should be there.--inksT 01:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I can agree with that statement, but I feel that my threshold for inclusion supports an optimistic view of Wikipedia's potential for growth while some of these votes betray an attitude that seems contrary to an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit." It presumes that we should try to "manage" contributions so that the most notable topics are fully covered before we stray into more trivial matters. Of course we can agree that many more notable libraries have yet to be written about, but we do not agree that we should therefore delete what HAS been written about this one. Dystopos 03:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I assure you, the housing estate is not at all article worthy either :) And I'm sure we can agree that removing material from Wikipedia that shouldn't be there is just as constructive as putting stuff in that should be there.--inksT 01:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It'd be nice we all kept busy with constructive additions that filled spots in the encyclopedia that were of comparable notability to articles in the encyclopedia, thus creating an encyclopedia that is comprehensive in what it handles, instead of creating articles about things that are just like thousands of others that aren't getting articles.--Prosfilaes 23:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds like the housing estate itself is probably worthy of an article, with perhaps some mention of the policy regarding the mix of retail and housing that was current at the time and a link to the famous and well-paid architect's biographical article. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all keep busy with constructive additions to the encyclopedia rather than going around deleting everything that isn't of any importance to you. Dystopos 23:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The fish and chips shop outside my house is a "local institution and landmark", the building is ex-government built housing, so it was designed by a famous and well paid architect, a provider of nutrition, a place for the community to meet and exchange information on local events, verifiable (features in the University Student Magazine, which has an online edition), and is totally unsuitable for Wikipedia. Given that the criteria you mention above can qualify an otherwise unsuitable fish and chips shop for inclusion, perhaps they are flawed?--inksT 22:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's also true (unless the author happens to set their novels in the Star Wars universe, of course). This building is more than an example of an architect's capability, however. It is also a local institution and landmark, an example of an important style of architecture, a keeper of locally significant archival collections, and, above all, verifiable and NPOV. Notability is a disputed criterion for deletion. Dystopos 19:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- When I said "normally painters and authors (and by extension architects) don't have articles for each and every creation", I was speaking in the context of Wikipedia. Even great authors don't typically have all their books wikified.--Prosfilaes 17:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You're absolutely right. And Amsterdam's Niewe Kerk is very very old. However the context for this structure is Woodstock, not Hamburg and the context for this article is Wikipedia, not Encarta. We've got an episode-by-episode guide to "Sex and the City", detailed descriptions of minor characters from The Simpsons, and we can afford articles about significant structures in medium-sized towns. Hey and listen, if you want to merge and redirect, that's fine. But AfD isn't the place to do that. Dystopos 13:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It was built by an architect who doesn't have an article, and normally painters and authors (and by extension architects) don't have articles for each and every creation, especially not for a creator of "regional note". 1912 is positively new by some standards; I understand in Hamburg the new town hall dates from the 13th century. --Prosfilaes 00:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider the structure itself, built as a free-library at the bequest of the first mayor of Woodstock, handsomely designed by an architect of regional note (G L Fairweather) and in continuous use since 1912 to be a structure of sufficient significance to merit an article in an encyclopedia alongside such institutions as "Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten". Dystopos 23:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is arguing that articles about notable structures belong in any encyclopedia; the subject under debate is whether or not this is a notable library.--Prosfilaes 22:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- very weak keep If secondary schools are notable by default, why not libraries? Roodog2k (Hello there!) 15:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Best rationale I've heard all day.--Nicodemus75 06:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Careful with that argument. The logical extension is "If secondary schools are notable by default, why not playschools?" It goes downhill from there. Denni☯ 06:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Woodstock, New Brunswick and remove Significant holdings section. The building seems notable but there is not enough content to constitute its own article. If more information is added and becomes a significant size, it can be moved back to this branch article. Zhatt 20:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, those are editorial actions, not arguments to delete. (Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages). Go ahead and do it. Dystopos 21:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, don't go ahead and do it. You shouldn't move or redirect a page linked to AfD. Merge is a standard answer to AfD; there's no reason to snap at everyone who offers it.--Prosfilaes 23:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean to snap. If people feel like the content should be merged, or that particular sections of the article are unencyclopedic, there's no reason not to do it, saving the redirect for the outcome of this discussion. Dystopos 23:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article is kept, there is no reason to merge it, just link to the article. I also don't like going around deleteing anything I think is unencyclopedic; I like to get a consensus first. Maybe that should be done in the talk page, but few check the talk page while the article has a VfD. Zhatt 17:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean to snap. If people feel like the content should be merged, or that particular sections of the article are unencyclopedic, there's no reason not to do it, saving the redirect for the outcome of this discussion. Dystopos 23:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, don't go ahead and do it. You shouldn't move or redirect a page linked to AfD. Merge is a standard answer to AfD; there's no reason to snap at everyone who offers it.--Prosfilaes 23:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, those are editorial actions, not arguments to delete. (Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages). Go ahead and do it. Dystopos 21:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a historic building in a small town which makes it fairly significant in the local area. Also its link to an important Confederation-era family makes it interesting and an article worthy of inclusion. --NormanEinstein 21:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wikipedia is not paper [1]. Architecturally and historically notable building. Luigizanasi 03:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for above reasons. --rob 04:42, 15 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.