Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evanston 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 per WP:SNOW. Reliable sources have been found and the subject establishes notability. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy  ( talk ) 09:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Evanston public library

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

Contested prod for vanispamcruft article created by a user named after the library and an IP address registered to the library. While article is formatted to show sources, all listed sources except one are owned by the library and the exception does not mention the library.  Google search finds public notices of groups meeting at library branches, but no obvious sources describing the library. Delete as per Verifiability unless sufficient independent sources to allow creation of a neutral article are provided. --Allen3 talk 16:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The editor who created the article used the name of the library as his username, but that does not prove he works there. I have edited articles on Thomas Edison and his work, but I am not that dead inventor. I have edited articles about Consolidated Edison, but I am not and do not work for that power company. Edison (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - While I would hope that an article on a very old and still very useful library could be saved through finding appropriate verification, this may be the single worst written article on this site; it is little more than a website for the library, and I in no way blame the nominator for prodding this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If the subject of a Wikipedia article has multiple reliable and independent sources, then it satisfies the notability requirements and cannot be "vanispamcruft." If the article needs editing, that is a reason for editing, and in no way a justification for deletion. This library has a great many references from outside its own town's newspapers, with indepth coverage of factors which set it apart from the average library system of a town of 80,000, not including routine "Smith to speak at library" articles. Any material which is not independently and reliably sourced can be removed and the article can be stubbed, if necessary, but with independent reliable sources establishing notability, the library website can be used to add some richness and detail to the article. Its early history is covered in detail in "Chicago: Its history and builders, 1912, pages 352-354 . Its history through 2008 is covered in "Evanston" (2008)(a town history) . A quick search shows that most of the material in the article can be sourced to Chicago or national newspapers or the above works. If someone checked with the actual library, they probably have many additional clippings and articles related to the lilrary and its history. These are just items easily found online.  From Google News search, there are many articles in reliable independent sources with coverage of this library (considering both the institution and the buildings). The New York Times, 1902  Discussed censorship by this library, which is in Illinois, showing that early on it had a national reputation, for better or worse. The Christian Science Monitor (1937)  discussed the unusual outdoor reading room on the roof of the library. The Daily Herald (1968)  (subscription: Newspaperarchive.com)discussed how the Evanston Libray's large collection would become the hub of the North Suburban Library System, to loan books and other materials to smaller libraries in surrounding communities. The Chicago Sun Times (1986)  discussed the high usage of the limited space in the library of that era and the need for a larger one. The Chicago Sun Times (1991)  discussed plans to replace the then 32 year old building with a new one which would double the size. The Philadelphia Inquirer (1991) discussed the architectural competition for the design of the library, which had 377 competititors from around the country . The Chicago Suntimes (1994)  had an article about the new $23million main building, says it is "one of the biggest public libraries in suburban Chicago." University wire, 1998  says it is one of the oldest in Illinois. Library Journal (2008)   had an article about the apparently unique Falcon Cam at the library which covers the yearly returning families of peregrine falcons which nest on top of a column at the library. This was also covered by CBS TV in Chicago .  Edison (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete Clearly G11 IMHO, plus WP:COI of original creator. So nominated. ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC). Abbreviation now linked. – ukexpat (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep: I have reworked some of the history stuff and removed some of the unencyclopedic content. NB some of the links to the library website generate 404 errors when I try to access them. – ukexpat (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - External links now working for me. – ukexpat (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Please do not refer to Wikipedia abbreviations without linking to them, for the assistance of editors less familiar with how to find byzantine guidelines. The "COI of original creator" in no way removes the citations I provided above. Did you take a look at them? Additionally, the library was a winner in the 2008 Library Interior Design Competition of the Library Administration and Management Association (LAMA) and the International Interior Design Association (IIDA) for its teen room called "the loft." Edison (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - in any event all the opening hours stuff is unencyclopedic and should be deleted. Any objection if I do that? – ukexpat (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" so please do what you can to improve the article. I went through and removed the text that said "Please call such and such number for more information" but left the descriptions of programs. The article clearly needs revision such as more discussion of the holdings.Edison (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * G11 refers to the speedy deletion criterion for articles that are "Blatant advertising". Given the dry nature of the article, I'm not sure it applies. --Salvador Barley (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per User:Edison Myrrideon (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources are there. Notability is established.  --Salvador Barley (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Kudos to Edison and ukexpat! LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per User:Edison. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think we have reached consensus per WP:SNOW. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:41, 12 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.