Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnian American Library of Chicago


 * 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. notability requires sources that discuss the subject not simple assertions Spartaz Humbug! 03:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Bosnian American Library of Chicago

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Zero Google hits for this organization apart from Wikipedia and the Library's own web page (or cached copies/excerpts thereof). This rather strongly implies it is both non-notable and non-verifiable. Where is the independent third-party coverage of this institution? —Psychonaut (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly this article has been in place for one week. It might have been appropriate to wait a little to see whether the text was expanded with other material and references.  Secondly it is surely not unreasonable to try searching on "Bosnian-American Library" or "Bosnian Library" and "Chicago" before pouncing with your request for deletion.  You're starting to give the impression of lying in wait for Bosniak.  Opbeith (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to question the motives for this proposed deletion. Please stick to discussing whether the article meets Wikipedia's policies for notability and verifiability.  If you have evidence that the subject of the article is covered in independent third-party sources under another name, then post it. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Reasonably notable events organised by and at the Bosnian(-American) Library http://www.mfa.gov.ba/HTML/Arhiva/Eng/DKP_09/D090309_B.html http://www.bosnianlibrarychicago.com/past-events.html (pictures) http://www.cgbhchicago.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=38&Itemid=12&lang=en&limitstart=6 http://www.cgbhchicago.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=108:saopenje-za-javnost&catid=38:vijesti&Itemid=12&lang=en (Bosnian Consulate-General site) http://www.genocidepreventionmonth.org/overview/genocide-prevention-month-pledge.html Dream for Darfur's Genocide Prevention Month - programme of lectures and cultural education "Educating Against Prejudices" Section http://www.bosnjaci.net/prilog.php?pid=31610 "Educating Against Prejudices" Section http://www.bosniaks.net/prilog.php?pid=34702 CHICAGO: REMEMBERING THE DAY OF THE SREBRENICA GENOCIDE event presented by the Bosnian American Library in Chicago and American Music Festivals with speakers including Jonathan Moore, prospective Deputy Head of Mission, US Embassy in Sarajevo, Semuel R. Harris, Director of Holocaust Museum in Skokie, Philip Simmons, Founder and Music director American Music Festival: Personal remarks on Holocaust and prominent Bosnians

There is a large Bosnian community in Chicago. This is a respected community institution housed in the Conrard Sulzer Public Library. You could do worse than contact Sanja Seferovic Drnovsek, director of the "Educating Against Prejudices" Section, an organiser of events involving US and Bosnian personalities. Opbeith (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If these events are notable, then they themselves may qualify for Wikipedia articles. However, notability of the events does not imply notability of the venue.  (However, it would be highly unusual for a locally organized lecture series to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.) —Psychonaut (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was simply mentioning these events and the participants as evidence that the Library is "adequately notable" for inclusion.  But you knew that. Opbeith (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Improve Thank you for inviting me for this discussion. I opened the article and I did not have time to expand it. I hoped other people would join and help me improve this article. Bosnian American Library of Chicago is central to the cultural life of Bosniaks in that area, and probably in that state. It hosted some high profile guest speakers, one of them being Holocaust survivor Mr Sammuel R. Harris (aka: Sam Harris) (see http://www.bosniak.org/report-remembering-the-day-of-the-srebrenica-genocide/ ). I believe this article deserves a chance and would appreciate if we could expand it as part of cultural life of Bosniak diaspora in the United States. I thank you all in advance, and I will be contributing more to that article over the weekend. Bosniak (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, this is a wing of a regional branch of the Chicago Public Library. Neither of the two regional branches (Sulzer or Woodson) even has an article. Leaning toward delete.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(i) Re the original nomination: from WP:AfD "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator or notifying an associated wikiproject, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." So why was this article nominated in the first place?

(ii) Tony the Tiger, if the absence of an article about the higher elements of a hierarchy means that an article about a lower part cannot be included, article creation must follow a systematic programme, and one which imposes one-dimensional hierarchies. However helpful that might be, it is not reconcilable with an open access principle that allows editors to contribute articles based on interest and enthusiasm. It's common sense that allows a reasonable compromise to be achieved. The Bosnian American Library, although housed in the Charles Sulzer Library, plays a specific role of wider than regional interest and the references now cited indicate that. The Charles Sulzer library may well justify its own article but no-one has yet created an article, or at least a substantial enough one to survive. And even though the Bosnian American Library is in any case of more than local and minority interest, the history of the last fifty years has shown that it is inappropriate for a majority to adopt a model of systematic disregard of minority community interests and values.

(iii) (Personal comment) Wikipedia is seen and used as a useful resource in the real world. I hope I don't need to cite references in support of that assertion. I don't think that's just a value judgment on my part. In the absence of a "wider picture" perspective Wikipedia risks becoming weighted towards a demographically driven Trivial Pursuits resource whose rules give well-crafted articles about video games and TV-serial and comic-book characters de facto a greater right to existence than less-complete articles about institutions and events with a substantive relevance to real lives.

Wikipedia is something more than a post-modernist virtual concept. Wikipedia rules have developed as a safety-net with one over-riding purpose - to ensure that the democratic principles/operation of Wikipedia don't risk damaging its real-world usefulness/credibility. That constant tension is mediated - albeit imperfectly, as in real life - by common sense. Properly validated articles about video-game characters are part of Wikipedia democracy. But rule-heavy policing should not be used to evict information whose presence a reasonable person would consider beneficial rather than harmful. And above all it should not be used in a way that deters editors who use expend personal time and energy in good faith to share that information.

Opbeith (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I can find no sources.  The ones offered consist of self-published information, press releases, and event announcements.  It doesn't matter is if an editor spent personal time in a good faith effort if the material does not meet inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For purposes of establishing notability, however disparaging you may be about press releases issued by the Bosnian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Sarajevo and the Bosnian Consulate General in Chicago, surely those bodies are eligible to count, in this context at least, as reliable sources according to the Wikipedia guidelines you direct me to? "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - it's difficult to see why straightforward reports such as these should be vulnerable to challenge as coming from unreliably sources.Opbeith (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't argue against unyielding rules, I can only suggest that their interpretation could take account of the implicit acknowledgment of notability indicated by the support for the BAL of the State Department, the Bosnian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the organisation representing the Bosnian community in North America. If establishing the notability of an institutions whose primary focus is on providing a specifically native language service to a minority community is dependent on English-language sources, it is not unreasonable to give some consideration to alternative English-language evidence of its activities.  If the rules don't allow that sort of flexibility, then you just have to kill off the article. Opbeith (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no prohibition against non-English sources, nor has any editor here stated a deletion opinion that excludes non-English sources. For that matter, nobody has even offered up any non-English sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * At the Srbrenica massacre/genocide article it was insisted that the twelve words of Bosnian that accompanied 8000 names on the list issued by the Federal Commission for Missing Persons made it unacceptable as confirmation of the identities of the victims. Is it the case that non-English sources are allowed? Opbeith (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the issues at that article might be, but per WP:NONENG, non-english sources are acceptable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a helpful reference.Opbeith (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge? If, as Tony the Tiger states above, this is a branch of the Chicago Public Library, perhaps we can merge Bosnian American Library of Chicago into Chicago Public Library. I'm not sure about the Wiki policy regarding mergers, but perhaps that can be an approach that is a better alternative then deletion. --Pink Bull (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree with the helpfully intended suggestion to merge. The significance of the Bosnian American Library is not simply as a library, it lies in its role as an institution serving the specific social, cultural and linguistic needs of a large exile community. Opbeith (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I support keeping the article. I was only suggesting a merge as the worst case scenario. Sincerely, --Pink Bull (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On what basis would the article be kept? I can see a case for a merge (although I don't agree), but I don't really see a case for keeping a stand-alone article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The library is notable enough to be mentioned in wikipedia. The article needs to be improved, so instead deleting it, let's improve it. Bosniak (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Owen, can you please put your position in "bold" so we can have an overview of all votes. Thanks. Bosniak (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2009 (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.