Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rancho Cucamonga 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 Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rancho Cucamonga Public Library[edit]

The page is a copy of http://www.rcpl.lib.ca.us/history.htm DeeKenn (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The page is no longer a copyvio. Perhaps some references can be found for the article other than the library's own wbsite. --Eastmain (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local libraries are almost never notable. There;s nothing special said about this one, nor was there really anything adequate in the copyvio that could be used. DGG (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned above, there really is nothing notable about the RCPL. DeeKenn (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Rancho Cucamonga, California. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Notable architecture for a library bulding or significant holdings of special collections not easily duplicated elsewhere would establish notability. I don't think this library has either, but these points should be considered the next time a library's notability is discussed. --Eastmain (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gary King (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if there's a local-library system article in which it can be included, otherwise delete. Travellingcari (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is basically an article about the library system and not one building. So, it is in effect the merge target suggested above. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2008 (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.