Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles C. Sherrod 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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles C. Sherrod Library[edit]

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

There is nothing particularly notable about this university library. All sources are primary. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are many other academic library entries here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Academic_libraries what makes one notable and not the other? Lokiprof (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)lokiprof[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem to be very notable. Too many primary sources. Possible WP:COPYVIO with phrases like "Our faculty can place library and/or personal materials on course reserve." bojo | talk 12:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Our faculty can place library and/or personal materials on course reserve." bojo does NOT violate copyright.

Comment @Lokiprof: The presence of other articles of a similar nature on Wikipedia is not a valid argument for the retention of this article. Other articles may or may not meet inclusion criteria either, but this discussion is not about those articles. This discussion is about this particular article, where sufficient notability has not been demonstrated. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @WikiDan61: This "The design includes a main stair in the center of the building with dome and clerestory at roof level. Ken Ross Architects Inc./David Leonard Associates PC, were responsible for the library's design, which was highlighted as an "Outstanding Building" in the 1999 Architectural Portfolio of American School & University. In 2000, as part of the library's recognition, President Paul E. Stanton, Jr. remarked "We are pleased to have achieved joint recognition for the design and function of our new Sherrod Library. This is a beautiful facility that impresses all who see or use it, including visitors to campus as well as prospective students and families" doesn't make it notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokiprof (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Lokiprof: I don't know that it does. I've added this discussion to the Architecture list; perhaps we'll get some input from experts on the subject. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to some target, either to the university article or possibly to a new list-article of the campus buildings of East Tennessee State University, as a compromise. I happen to accept the "other stuff exists" type argument, that there are many academic articles and what is different about this one, is a fair question. Let us note that there are list-articles about university buildings which have been split out of university articles, and which have served as good places to host info about individual dormitories and other buildings that are not hugely notable. See Category:Lists of university and college buildings in the United States. There is East Tennessee State University#Campus buildings which is ripe for splitting out. On the other hand, it lists an indoor arena which has an article and this library, plus numerous perhaps booring academic and residence buildings. We could be on the verge of a campaign to create separate articles about each one.

In favor of this article:

The assertion above that it was designated an "Outstanding Building" in the 1999 Architectural Portfolio of American School & University, although I don't have perspective about the importance of that award.
The general fact that university libraries are fairly salient landmarks in their communities, and usually have relatively more importance to the outside-university public than do dormitories or classroom buildings.
I want to assume good faith on the part of the contributor, as a new contributor who is capable of writing and has much to offer.

Problems of writing can be addressed by editing and/or by tagging, don't require deletion of the whole article.

Not in favor of this article:

This is no Bizzell Memorial Library (an academic library which is in fact historically significant on a U.S. national level); I don't see any assertion of historic importance, nor any significant one of architectural importance
I haven't gone very far in Google News searching, but I haven't turned up anything substantially about the library, besides routine articles in the East Tennessean (a student newspaper, or a university admin publication?) about new staff, what's happening this summer, etc. Onus is on the article developers in general to provide evidence of importance.
Content such as "Our faculty can place library and/or personal materials on course reserve" belongs on a library webpage, and is decidedly not encyclopedic, is not written from the perspective of the encyclopedia. It is embarrassing to see, in fact.
Merger to a list of university buildings is a decent alternative to deletion. It saves the content in the edit history of what becomes a redirect.

In balance, I kind of assume a sort of notability for a university library, although what is present should be edited way down and put in encyclopedic tone. This can be done in a few sentences. A few sentences is perhaps more than is appropriate within the university article. Splitting out a list of campus buildings would provide suitable spot for the few sentences or more about the library.

Note to any closer: if there is still no separate list-article on the university's buildings, that should not stop a close with direction to merge/redirect to such a target. The decision can still be posted at the article; the decision does not have to be implemented all the way immediately. And you can also notify me of such a close and I will create such an article. --do ncr am 17:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a web page for the library not an encyclopedia article. The sort of detail covered is inappropriate to the point of being of interest only to the university's own students. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely primary sourced at the moment, and searches reveal why, not a lot about this library out there. Although a redirect to East Tennessee State University wouldn't hurt. I don't see much, if anything to merge. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per DGG's argument, this is simply a lengthy extension/replication of the library website. The current building, less than 20 years old, doesn't strike me as being notable either. Deletion wouldn't prohibit someone adding a couple of sentences, but merging this entire content would be completely unbalanced. Sionk (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to East Tennessee State University. Seems fairly straightforward. Not seeing any evidence that it's notable outside of the university. All of the sources are primary. The main article mentions it, however, so it only makes sense to redirect, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:38, 15 April 2017 (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.