Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inner Temple Library

Add links
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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. There is no way this will end up in a consensus to merge, it is generating more heat than light, and AfD is not the proper venue for discussing mergers anyway. Future merger discussions should take place on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Temple Library[edit]

Inner Temple Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not independently notable of Inner Temple. While there is coverage of the library, it mainly in the context of or as part of the Temple, and I see no reason to keep an article around when a similar subsection is elsewhere. Arguments that it is notable for age are non-starters; by that logic, almost every building in the Temple is! Ironholds (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Inner Temple as described. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The library is part of the Inns of Court. Further, the subsection says, "The original Library existed from at least 1506, and consisted of a single room." To me, add it up (along with other things) and the library itself seems quite interesting and notable, at least to those interested in libraries, more notable than being placed in a subsection of a larger article. I say consideration should be given to moving the subsection into the Library article to keep, then add a link that says see more detail there, and so on. And the article could be built up -- I wouldn't kill it at this early stage. If it proves useless in the future after good faith efforts to make it Wikiworthy, that's a different story to be considered at that time. For now, I say it's a keeper. That aside, as this is library related, let me point out a possible COI. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It being old is not a valid keep reason - as said, that could cover every building in Inner Temple! Find me some independent coverage that passes WP:GNG and we'll talk. Ironholds (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe someone has added quite a few such references quite recently. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And more, just now.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The version I read would appear to easily meet the basic notability guideline. Other sources I found confirm this library's status as an archive of important legal manuscripts.[1] Generally speaking, very old state-related institutions can't avoid becoming notable, by dint of sheer persistence. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and link in both directions to the main IT article, so that details can be kept/added that would be inappropriately, err, detailed for the main article (which has to cover an awful lot) but appropriate for a subsidiary article. At the very least, merge, redirect to the appropriate section and keep the redirect categorised. My COI is that I'm a member of Inner Temple and sit on a couple of its committees, although I have no authority within the Inn and have nothing to do with the running of the library. BencherliteTalk 19:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant institution. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Merge to Inner_Temple#Library. There is where it belongs, why was it split out? WP does not to be redundant. What would make the Library seperatly notable from the rest of the Inner Temple. If the Inner Temple did not exist, neither would this, they are 1 and the same, and so should their Articles be. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 01:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err, it wasn't split out. Until a couple of days ago, the Inner Temple article looked like this, and the library article (which has existed since April 2007) had the best details about the library until Ironholds did a tremendous job in expanding the main article very recently. Don't let that confuse you into thinking that Inner Temple always looked as good as it does now! BencherliteTalk 01:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What it looked like in the past is irrelevant. They are 1 and the same structure, Why does it get 2 Articles? Is 1 Independantly notable from the other? Simply because Part of the structure was spoken about in a Ref does not mean that they were talking about a separate building, on the contrary, they were only talking about the part of the structure that was of intrest to them. Arguments to Keep are overlooking the obvious, WP already has a Article on the topic. Strong Merge. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 16:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are two subjects here - the library as an institution, and the library as a building. I believe it's probably appropriate to have articles on both. And there's only one right now, which I'm not sure treats which of the two. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Independently notable, just as the libraries of the really major universities are. (And essentially Inner Temple counts as such a university, in the context of British history. ) the Bodleian wouldn't exist unless Oxford University did, but none the less it is independently notable. And ditto with all major first order subdivisions of such historic institutions. A major academic institution, and there are sources to show it, as you;d expect given 5 centuries of history. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A search of LISA, the standard abstracting database for library science and library history, turns up six articles with substantial discussion of the library or its collections in their own right (rather than in the context of the Inner Temple). EALacey (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep historic importance, cultural and constitutional influence.--Brunnian (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Extremely notable library - this AfD nomination is ridiculous. What next, Big Ben? NBeale (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, if there were 2 Articles on the same Topic. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 16:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't panic, we will get to that one in time too. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 21:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm calm. As I assume it will be w/the same lack of consensus support.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confident, in time consensus will change. Pretty soon, arguments like "the library as an institution, and the library as a building" will be seen as a flimsy excuse for 2 articles on the same topic. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:50, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Inner_Temple_Library&oldid=1137930643"