Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birkenhead Library, building controversy

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birkenhead Library, building controversy[edit]

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

It's a pity so much time and effort has gone into such a non-notable local-issue article. Most of the references are from a free community newspaper - these are not generally considered reliable sources, and in New Zealand they have a tendency to take sides in local issues or wage campaigns. The major metropolitan newspaper, the NZ Herald, has only run two items on the dispute in 3½ years. The lack of reliable reportage makes it difficult to ensure NPOV, and it is notable that the sole contributor to this article is a single-purpose account. I detect a pro-library bias. dramatic (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Delete but merge any WP relevant stuff into Birkenhead Library. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dramatic, i have spent a great deal of effort avoiding bias by sourcing everything written, from the council records and local paper. Just because the latter is free doesnt make it unreliable, and your claim that its a non-notable topic seems pokemonically absurd. Ditto your contrast between "local" and "major metropolitan" - in the age of the hyperlocal thats merely snobbery. So just exactly what have you detected??

As to merging.. well, I've just split it off from the Library article because that one was deemed too long.. OohAh (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dramatic is merely following WP policy. There is no suggestion of snobbery or that local papers are less reliable. Wikipedia:Reliable sources requires the use of "mainstream" newspapers as sources. Personally I would prefer that editors try and avoid newspapers as much as possible. We should go to the source to avoid the editorial bias of the newspapers. Altough WP is touted as not being paper this should not be an invitation to include everything. Producing a comprehensive article on the controversy about a local library building introduces a sort of local systemic bias into WP. There are many articles that are yet to be written or articles that need expanding before this very local and low notability article is added. It is a shame that all your hard work is put up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cut the material by 90% and work it back into Birkenhead Library. This is clearly someone's pet issue. -Glenfarclas (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I regard the North Shore Times-Advertiser as a reliable source, and have used it as a reference myself for several articles. I agree that the subject matter is pushing the boundaries for what is suitable for a Wikipedia article, not because it lacks suitable sources, but because the material is such a small sliver of local politics. The best solution is probably to merge it back to the library article, and to condense the material a bit. It might be worth looking for an alternative host for it. I'm not aware of a North Shore wiki, and the Auckland wiki I know of died a few months ago.-gadfium 06:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an article with so many citations (63) is a sure sign that is not a notable subject. Already mentioned in main article probably no need for any more than that. MilborneOne (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, merely following, i get that. This is not the place to get frustrated at policies that suggest there is a hierarchy of topics to be covered. i just dont think the world, or wp, is that simple, tidy, necessary or likely. i wrote in the spirit of wp. i could get pissed at 'pet project' sneering though - what on wp aint? Just to be clear: this article is not really new, its the sub-section from the original article, almost verbatim, and it was written about 2 years ago. I note that during its writing, and since, noone objected in this way. Hence my bemusement. Somehow what was acceptable as a subsection has become untenable as an article. Be that as it may, whatever. Fit it as per policy. I'm not too fussed about the work, that's long done. Good luck. OohAh (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The North Shore Times isn't the only source of references, some are from the council and other newspapers. The number of references is in itself an indication that the topic is notable and independently verifiable in future. I've not read enough to worry about POV concerns but they are seperate from the decision as keeping the article - SimonLyall (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - while it is a local issue, based on the wealth of citations (and enough of them seem reliable and neutral enough to me) it seems like it has garnered enough coverage to merit inclusion. If not keep, then relevant information should certainly be merged back into the main article. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The depth/extent of the article gives an exaggerated sense of notability to a local and relatively minor issue. By local I mean Birkenhead, not the North Shore as a whole. The best solution would be to merge it back into the main Library article (2 or at most 3 paaragraphs should be sufficient). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has plenty of references to reliable sources (plural) that are independent of the subject, so it is notable (according to Wikipedia's definition). That's really all that matters. If someone has already put in the effort to produce an extensive and well-sourced article, why throw it away? -- Avenue (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the main points to Birkenhead Public Library and delete the rest. So much of this won't matter in a few months, it's all local bickering. This needlessly-long article is more like a committee report than an encyclopedia article. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While its not the most important article here, it is here now and I see no reason to delete it. I don't have a problem with local newspapers used as sources as they are supported by sources from a national paper and primary council documents. While I agree with some others that there are more important and notable articles that aren't in wikipedia yet, that is no reason to delete this one just because others haven't been created. I'd also disagree with the idea that the large number of citations hints that the subject is not notable, in fact I'd argue the opposite. Obviously if not keep then merge back into the Library article. Mattlore (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2009 (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.