Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SAILS Library Network

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SAILS Library Network[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. Prod was removed by the article creator with the explanation that "library systems are generally considered notable", which is absolutely false. Come up with a reliable non-local source that discusses this quasi-governmental agency in detail and I'll happily withdraw this. Stating there is something inherently notable about a library system is both false and lazy. I see nothing either here or WP:BEFORE that shows notability and WP:OTHERCRAP is just that. John from Idegon (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are numerous examples of library systems being kept as inherently notable (I gave Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catoosa County Library or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gadsden County Public Library System as examples in my edit summary). The most prudent example might actually be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North of Boston Library Exchange, which is a much more poorly sourced article on an almost identical library network that was kept at AfD. @John from Idegon, if you feel these sorts of articles should not be kept, please also add the following to your nomination so that we don't have to litigate them one at a time:

(I'm not trying to claim WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS by listing these, just trying to save time by consolidating). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is not a referendum on the notability of libraries in general, but rather on whether this library is notable. They are not and this not the place to discuss that. I'd say if you want to establish some sort of consensus on the general notability of libraries, WP:VPP would be the place. So no, I won't be doing that. John from Idegon (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is an article in Computers in Libraries, listed here, more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not like how this page is listed for AfD less than 3 hours after it's creation, that's not assuming good faith, and gets a little close to WP:BITING (in fact, this exact scenario is nicely outlined there). I would like to try and help this article before I make my final decision, for now though this page is strikingly similar to dozens of other library consortium pages, most of which can be found at the Category:Library consortia page. I would like to note that despite what the nominator claims, library systems are historically voted as "keep" at AfD a large amount of the time. This is not a referendum on this page as it currently stands, but is it say there are countless examples in the talk page of WP:Libraries and in other places to show that library systems are generally notable. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At one time, all Pokemon were considered notable too. If you want an WP:SNG, propose one. We have draft space to develop articles. No article should ever come to mainspace that does not meet WP:GNG. If I had found sufficient sourcing, I would have draftifyed it. I didn't. Take your aspersions and shove them up your ass. John from Idegon (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely appalled at that last statement. Nothing I wrote could have possibly prompted such a horrifying response. See WP:CIVIL SEMMENDINGER (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Typical! Its all about bottoms with you wikieditors." (with apologies to Fawlty Towers) Coolabahapple (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sublime Coolabahapple}. The most graphic interaction that has been stimulated by a WP library article? Lower tone guys. There is a serious point at the core of this, hence why there are no votes yet (and this will need re-listing), about WP policy re these networks that may be needed. The actions of liabaries don't make front page news (per normal GNG), but doesn't mean that the significance of the networks should not be recorded. The amount of existing articles on equivalent networks might imply that the WP community does have a leaning in this direction (same example as per WP:PORNBIO, which makes up for lack of GNG). Pinging DGG and PamD for expertise. Britishfinance (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have always counted county (and similar) library systems as notable-- I cannot immediately think of any exception; we have however usually not counted those of individual towns, though there has sometimes been disagreement. The question, as usual here, depends on what we consider a substantial reference and what a mere notice. We are usually quite tolerant of that for important community institutions. The terms in the GNG are general, and need to be interpeted in individual cases, and how they interpret them is up to the community. And even more fundamentally, the GNG, of course, is a guideline, and not only do all guidelines intrinsically permit exceptions, but this particular one makes a point of saying so at the top. The actual policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE, and by includingthe systems but not the individual libraries we are meeting that policy. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Re-visiting this after a while away. I think we really need to get around to making a WP:NLIBRARY once and for all, because this is one of dozens of examples of library systems getting called to AfD, and so far I can't think of any that have failed. I agree with with DGG wrote on the matter and list it as the reason for my vote. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2019 (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.