Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chungnang District Information 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   no consensus, other than these should be nominated separately. No prejudice against immediate renom, as long as they are not bundled together. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  23:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Chungnang District Information Library

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

Wikipedia is not a directory or guidebook. These Seoul public libraries are not individually notable.

In each case the article consists only of name and location; the references for each library are only its own web-site (mostly in Korean) and a list of Seoul public libraries. I have left off this list the National Library of Korea, an established article, and also National Assembly Library of Korea and Korea Foundation Cultural Center which, although new and with no more information than these, seem to me to have the possibility of development into encyclopedia articles.

For those listed, I suggest we delete all; I find it hard to see how they could be made encyclopedic, and I think a single article on the Seoul public library system, with a reference to the list of libraries, would be adequate. JohnCD (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and agree with delete all per JohnCD's rationale above. Wikipedia is, indeed, not a directory. -- Quartermaster (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, All are individually notable, but just need more time to develop each article' contents. Besides, didn't you see that "municipal library" among them? Namsan Public Library is also very famous and has been frequently a location for filming. I have to check other libraries in cities in US. --Caspian blue (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment On what basis do you claim that these are all individually notable? My nomination has nothing to do with their being Korean; my local public library is certainly not individually notable, and I wouldn't expect that all of those in any city were. JohnCD (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, Because I've lived there for years, as a locale, I certainly know about the libraries much better than you. I don't know where you live, but the libraries are not just some libraries, especially, Namsan Public Library which holds historic documents and resource. You will see a little implement by me in the short period time right after leaving the above comment. You certainly know that "municipal" is bigger than just ward or neighborhood. The article was freshly created and you just put up for deletion so quickly. Wikipedia is a place for readers to access more information, and the listed articles could provide such chances to readers. Well, I'm pretty sure of the this AFD discussion would take more days, so you also will see how the article would be developed. --Caspian blue (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Unbundle there's no way these can effectively be handled together. Some may be more notable and should be kept, whereas others may not be notable. For example, Namsan has been cited in book development in Korea as well as other research as has Yongsan Library. I think there is a potential bias issue here if they are handled en masse and notable issues may be overlooked. I don't think the nom was in bad faith but having dealt with coverage of other Asian topics in English before, I think there's too much at steak for a bundled 5 day AfD. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 00:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least one, perhaps more, appears notable. Similiar major libraries in other cities have articles, and it would be biased to remove all of these, because some may not be notable. As such the bulk deletion fails the test of "If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately.". Though why most of these can't be covered in a single article I don't know. Nfitz (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nfitz. First of all, the history alone of the Namsan Public Library makes it notable. Bundle-AfDing almost every library in Category:Libraries in Seoul is not practical and very counter productive to the improvement of these articles. These all require through research (in Korean as well as English) to determine their inclusion value. The nom has only described what they see in the articles and make no mention of any attempt to determine the notability of them. Another problem is that all of these were nominated for deletion WITHIN ONE DAY of their creations, giving virtually no chance for editors to improve and expand the articles over time. --Oakshade (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all large scale bundled nominations of this type make it next to impossible to give due care and attention to each article listed. Some may well be notable others not so, but to be fair to each article seperate AfD's would be required. RMHED (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unbundle. I am not a big fan of bundling together institutions some of which may be notable and other which mat be not and think that they deserve individual consideration. I have no objection to a merge to a combined article Libraries in Seoul. Smile a While (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2008 (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.