Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Libraries (collection)


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 14:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

American Libraries (collection)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non-notable directory Fgnievinski (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment - Related discussion for Canadian varient at Articles for deletion/Canadian Libraries. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 20:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete – Not finding significant coverage to qualify the topic per WP:N. Only finding passing mentions (e.g. ) and instances where content from the collection is cited (e.g. ). N ORTH A MERICA 1000 04:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Per a serious lack of input here, pinging, a librarian, in hopes to obtain their perspective. Note that this is not canvassing, as I am not suggesting how they should !vote if they choose to. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 05:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * keep Responding to the ping, I'm not sure about whether what content would be most appropriate, but we need to keep the article. Such things are important, especially in terms of our mission as a supporter of open resources, regardless of whether they get written about. It may be possible to justify it by the conventional GNG, but in any case I would justify keeping it by IAR. WP:N is a guideline, not a policy, and IAR specifically applies in such cases. It might be desirable for us to have other ways of handling material like like this, but at present this seems the only practical way.  DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – Upon further consideration, per 's rationale, vis-à-vis WP:IAR. The article technically also qualifies as a reasonable WP:SPINOUT of the Internet Archive article per WP:SIZERULE. Also of note is that the Internet Archive article presently has a merge tag to merge this article into it. Struck my previous !vote above. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 06:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – Per DGG's comment. However, the bulk of the article consists of the contributors list and I'm not sure how useful that is. I suspect it's far from complete, it's available from the reference link, and it's not clear why contributors are on the list. I'd like to see more about the process – how books get digitized and into the library. There was some information about that in hits like these: GB WSJ AL Magazine I'm definitely opposed to merging the list of contributors into Internet Archive. This should be about digitizing. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2015 (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.