Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camden County 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. Consensus is that the articles found appear to support the building's notability. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Camden County Library

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable library. Night of the Big Wind talk  22:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Deletion/Keep I have added the information - with two references from two different news organizations - that it holds one of the largest book sales in South Jersey on a regular basis. Allens (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Deletion Libraries, particularly groups of libraries such as this one, are pillars of their communities - I've just done a rudimentary Google search and found major articles like this one which show evidence of good coverage. Obviously, stuff like this needs to be added to the article quickly! Sionk (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done; thanks for finding the reference! Allens (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Multiple published sources showing in footnotes, passes GNG. Libraries are civil centers of sorts and they are the sorts of community institutions about which Wikipedia users are likely to seek information. This article is weak, but it's a start. Carrite (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The library still fails to make clear what makes in notable among other libraries. Having a book sale is not something special, I have seen that in several countries. Lending books and related materials is the core business, so that does not make them notable too. Libraries are very PR-sensitive, so you can probably find newsstories about every library in the world. Night of the Big Wind  talk  10:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm... what about what Sionk found (and amplified in the article when I'd missed it)? That isn't simply a book sale (and people in South Jersey would probably like to have the book sale in Wikipedia for their reference!). Moreover, pretty much every college and university is considered notable for Wikipedia - it isn't necessary that a college or university be different than every college and university for it to be listed; the same is true of towns (try doing a few "Random article" clicks sometime and see how many tiny French communes you come across... down to 10 people!); so why not libraries? WP:GNG doesn't list relative notability as a requirement. Allens (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that not every secondary school, seagoing vessel or university is automatically notable. Vested interests (Wikiprojects!!) declare the most strange non-notable subjects notable. I do not agree with that nasty habit and stick to the rule that every article/subject should be judged on its own merits. Based on that, and with working experience in the public library sector, I have found the library just an average library with nothing special and non-notable. Night of the Big Wind  talk  13:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not what I said; it's fine for every (real) college/university to be judged notable by WP:GNG. The article meets the qualifications; it does not need to have relative notability, only notability judged by itself. Allens (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we are building an encyclopedia, not a collection of data with a systemetic pro-American bias. Night of the Big Wind  talk  13:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the unfortunate pro-American bias (I agree with you that it's a problem), I've replied on your talk page, since it's irrelevant to this discussion. If you wish to have relative notability be what is the criterion, I suggest proposing a revision to WP:GNG. Allens (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly meets notability requirements. Nominator needs to understand WP:BEFORE  Chzz  ►  14:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit should stop hounding me... Night of the Big Wind  talk  20:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has reliable source coverage that meets notability requirements. A very notable institution serving South Jersey for decades. Tinton5 (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep We normally keep articles on county libraries from large counties such as this one, because with enough checking, there are inevitably good sources. And they have the sources because they're significant institutions in their community.  DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, existance of significant third party sources ( and, for starters), means that this meets the notability bar. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep Plenty of reliable sources demonstrating notability. First Light (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Since we have all keep votes, can somebody close this discussion? Tinton5 (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2011 (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.