Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bozeman 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The result was Withdrawn. I must admit, I wasn't aware that libraries were generally considered notable. Shows that you still learn something every day here. Black Kite 20:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bozeman Public Library[edit]

It's a library. Unsourced, no reason given why it's particularly notable, have tried to find them but nothing really out there. Black Kite 18:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I am not entirely convinced that a public library is particulary notable, Wikipedia seems to have established that library articles are worth keeping, and there are plenty of them. See, e.g., Category:Public libraries in the United States by state. •••Life of Riley (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Institute of Museum and Library Services awarded this library the 2003 National Award for Library Service.[1]. Also the in-depth subject of secondary sources, easily demonstrating passing WP:NOTABILITY. [2][3] --Oakshade (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Textbook WP:NOT#PAPER situation. Needs to be improved (with links like Oakshade's), not deleted. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. Articles on libraries have become Good Articles and I think there's even some FA's out there. Neither would be possible if libraries are not inclusion-worthy. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources for the information in the article can be located via Google: [4]. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I'm in the minority here, but I don't see what makes the public library in Bozeman, Montana more notable than any other library. Articles like these are good practice for someone wanting to sharpen their writing skills, but libraries generally offer the same services wherever they might be -- including their own web page Bozeman Public Library. Why do we need to duplicate something the library already has? "The Bozeman Public Library is a beautiful space where users can get a cup of coffee at a coffee shop located within the building and then study or read. When the reader tires of the book, a glance out the window will treat the eyes to a view of the local Bridger Mountain Range. A full range of services for young and old include computer access, an extensive newspaper and periodical section, a young reader area, and comfortable readings chairs and work tables. To ensure the fair access for the use of the computer, the computer users are limited to 1 hour." With the exception of the view of mountains, there's not much said of this that can't be said of any other public library. Obviously, this isn't written by someone on the staff -- Bozeman has had a library for more than three years! Mandsford (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was nationally recognized and awarded for its operations, besides being the non-trivial subject of secondary independent sources.--Oakshade (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, I stand corrected. I didn't see that in the article, but I see where you referred to it above. Mandsford (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improved citations. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 30 January 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.