Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Lea 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 keep. Mostly a procedural keep. There is consensus that at least some of these are notable and they should not be bulk nominated. No prejudice against individual re-nominations. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Albert Lea Public Library

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Hi! I am Pual98 and I am new to Wikipedia, so please feel free to correct me on my information. However, I have done a LOT of research on policies and believe I am right in my group proposal for deletion of the following libraries.

The grounds for deletion is primarily a failure to meet the standards of WP:CORP. None of these articles meet the standards of notability. As a context, the author of these articles, Winterstar74, has openly admitted the creation of these articles as a conflict of interest on Usertalk:Elkman/Archive12 where he says “I have been tasked to do in my position at SELCO (Southeastern Libraries Cooperating).” While I understand that COI is not a grounds for deletion, this makes it clear that the authors only goal (by the way this is not an active user) was to create a page for each SELCO library that only included a link to the website and the hours of the library. The libraries listed are not notable. On a side note, this is not a deletion of every library the author created. Those libraries that were significant have since then been updated into fuller articles or redirected to the main article (because the author did not think to look to see if the libraries already had pages). There are eight libraries that have nothing wrong with them.

Although this meets grounds for speedy deletion, many of these articles have failed speedy deletion. The reason being for some was the issue not being properly addressed in the speedy deletion and for others because the administrator who reviewed them making what I believe is a false connection. For example, in Albert Lea Public Library’s speedy deletion process, SarekOfVulcan denied it because “odds are, a public library is notable enough.” This rationale is completely off. The WP:CORP clearly says “No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools.” I do believe SarekOfVulcan was acting in good faith, however the fact of the matter remains, just because these are libraries does not make them inherently notable.

What was a little worse than this is the same SarekOfVulcan saying “decline speedy - I would presume a public library to be notable in the absense of evidence otherwise” in the speedy deletion of LeRoy Public Library. Are you telling me that libraries are notable unless there is evidence saying, “no, this library was not a notable library.” Where are you going to find a source like that? It’s not “notable unless proven otherwise”—it has to be proven notable.

Overall, I would say the best solution would be the deletion of these articles and the creation of an articles for SELCO as the overarching backbone of all of these articles. I wouldn’t be surprises if I missed a library or two in the creation of this AfD, so please notify me if you find one that fits in this category. On the other side, I would not be surprised if one or two of these libraries can be proven to be notable, so in the case of this, please notify me which one is notable and I will remove it. Pual98 (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Many town libraries are independently notable, scanning this list I clicked on only 2 Northfield Public Library, a library built in 1910 with funds donated by Andrew Carnegie, the old Carnegie are something like prima facie notable. Then I clicked Rochester Public Library because I thought I recalled that Rochester is a pretty large city. I think this entire list is on the aggressive side, and that we would do much better to tag these articles for sourcing in place of this massive deletion.  Most civic libraries in the U.S. are notable (for their architecture, role in the community, speakers series and so forth.) Like so many topics, these articles need sourcing, not deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Many town libraries are notable, however this is the exact thinking I am fighting against (that because some are notable, all are notable). As I said, almost all of those that were notable which the author created on SELCO have since had their own articles made.  Take the article Northfield Public Library which you mentioned.  You argue that it was made in 1910 and had funds donated by Andrew Carnegie.  It is my belief that that date it was made is not related, notability is built on its own.  As for Carnegie, WP:INHERITORG says, "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it."  Carnegie was notable, this library, ehhh just another run-of-the-mill local library.  As for Rochester Public Library, you said you clicked on it because you recall that the city is large.  Does the city being large have anything to do with the notability.  On a side note, Rochester has just over 100,000 people; maybe a large town, but not a large city. Pual98 (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not misquote me. As I stated, Carnegie libraries are something like prima facie notable; this is because they are by definition a century old, and virtually always beloved by the towns that have them, and, therefore, sources almost always exist.  I ought to have been more specific, perhaps, but most editors working on libraries know this about those old libraries (especially library directors who have tried to renovate or replace one).E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A city the size of Rochester is almost certain to have a library that can be reliably sourced; the photo on Rochester Public Library (Minnesota) demonstrated to me that the city has recently invested in a substantial, new building. Nice design; article can almost certainly be sourced with info about the architect, funding.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just sourced this to the Minnesota Historical Society's Centennial History of the Northfield Carnegie Library.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I happen to be a frequent patron of the Rochester library. Due to its proximity to Mayo Clinic and its role as the leading public library for Southeast Minnesota, it has more cultural programs, speakers, author visits, and so forth than you might expect in a city of this size. Jonathunder (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. I apologize for sounding a little impatient above.  I do know what it is like to be new(ish) at Wikipedia, and I am sorry to have snapped at you.  I also admit to having an old-fashioned fondness for libraries and older library buildings.  Since you are new, you may not be aware that you can close this by withdrawing, just say so at the bottom of this page.  I also want to suggest that the most useful contributions to Wikipedia are made by editors who source and expand pages.  I can almost guarantee that there are pages in dire need of expansion, sourcing and editing on every topic that you are interested in.  I hope that you will stick around, heaven knows that we need all the good editors we can get.  Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. All I am trying to do is help wikipedia.  It seems necessary to challenge beliefs, and while I still dont agree with everything you have said, thats the beauty of discussions.  There is no reason, IMHO, to ever get impatient about something on wikipedia.  We are all here to help.  I mean, I spent 4 hours on this AfD, and it will probably not pass, but im not mad about that.  Ha.  Have a nice day!  Thanks for the input.Pual98 (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. A bulk nomination of unrelated subjects is rarely a good idea. In this case, at least 3 of these libraries are on the National Register of Historic Places. We generally consider NRHP properties as notable because the documentation to support notability exists even if is is offline. The 3 NRHP substubs are poorly written but they probably can be expanded. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree that this is a poor approach-- Northfield is listed twice; libraries in Chatfield, Leroy, and Owatonna (and perhaps more) are on the NRHP.  I agree with  and . Libraries, just like the cities they are in, should be treated as notable.  Kablammo (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep all, at least procedurally. I'm not convinced that all libraries are notable, but many of them are, and three of the ones included in this nomination are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and are therefore unambiguously notable. If any of these are to be deleted, they need to be considered on an individual basis, not as part of a bulk nomination. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 13:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * '''WP:SNOW.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The NRHP ones should definitely be kept. I'm open to discussions of mergers or perhaps even deletion on some others, but I think the best thing to do on this mass nomination is to decline it. Jonathunder (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. Some of these libraries may well be entirely lacking in notability.  If, after performing WP:BEFORE Nom thinks that some of them lack notability, he is welcome to bring them individually to AFD;although it would probably be more useful to merge the smaller, un-notable ones into the pages of the individual towns.  But I can see no reason why they should be rounded up and mass deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * One approach would be to make articles on smaller city libraries sections of the pages for the cities than own them (and public libraries typically are owned by, and departments of, those cities), with appropriate redirects directly to the sections from the present article titles. But we should not put them into one article on SELCO, which is just an association of independent libraries (which is different than Great River Regional Library, a single entity which has branches in two dozen communities in six counties).
 * At Wikipedia we should want to make information about libraries easily available. They have resources which we need, including the ability to borrow books from other libraries to meet the requests of researchers including our article writers.  There is a lot to be said for the principle that all public libraries are inherently notable.  Kablammo (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that merging in to SELCO would be dysfunctional, unfriendly to users. And that redirecting some of these into article on the town works well. This is also Often a good solution for small museums; churches with a small degree of notability and similar in smaller towns.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Most should probably be deleted; public libraries are certainly not inherently notable unless they're very large, very famous, very historic or occupy historic buildings. However, they probably do need to be discussed separately. Incidentally, the suggestion that every public library is notable is ludicrous. There are hundreds of thousands of public libraries in the world, many small establishments in portakabins and the like. They do need to pass some sort of notability threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep As noted by previous users, several of the nominations are nationally historic, have sources, or are architecturally interesting.  To the nominator, mass noms are generally a bad idea.  One or two exceptions and they all get kept.  Changing your nom in the middle of it, as you suggest, is bad form.  The best way to nominate something for deletion is to actually do the research on every article, then nominate them individually.  Following someone around because of presumed COI, then nominating everything they've added is the definition of a bad faith nomination, and shows a lack of effort on your part to check that the articles are not notable.   Th e S te ve   02:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, procedural close please, some of these should be kept, some merged/redirected to town articles, some might be "deletes", this can be discussed on the article talkpages/library project page. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, hi, its great to see your enthusiasm, the more involved with afds the merrier:)), may i suggest observing and becoming involved in ongoing afds, group afds are very complicated as can be seen by the small number that are started, way less then 1% of all afds. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, Thank's all for the input. I will most likely take this down, however a few things first. , it wasnt "presumed." The author said himself he worked for SELCO and was told to do this as his job.  Also everything I did was with good faith.  I believe there is logic in saying, as I did, that he may have thought he was doing right when he made a majority of wrong articles (which most people agreed that a majority were wrong). The good faith is my belief that he wasnt doing it to harm Wikipedia, just like I started this nom with the goal of helping Wikipedia.  So please, please, dont get hostile and assume I am in bad faith.   and others, thank you for helping me.  I said going into this nom that it was my first ever and that I would be willing to take some articles down.  Going through 23 different articles or so at once to find any source of notability for every article is hard.  The reason I felt I had to do them together was because this is what I thought group noms are for, however many have made it clear that group noms will not usually pass.  It honestly surprises me that the notability of 3 give or take a few of 23 makes the whole thing invalid.  However, I will continue arguing in the future that notability is not inherent, and all articles do need to pass the same threshold.  As for the future of these articles, can someone give me guidance on what happens to them when removed from the nom?  They have sat here on wikipedia for a LONG time, and no change has happened to those that were recommended for change in the past.  Again I am new to everything and dont want to see this whole discussion go to waste.  Pual98 (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose mass nom with no prejudice against individual nominations. Addressing the earlier comments about my speedy declines, I would point out that according to the Deletion policy, speedy deletion should "not be used except in the most obvious cases", and "Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page." If there's any doubt about a speedy, or a prod, it should go through a full discussion. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.