Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Folsom Public Library (3rd nomination)


 * 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   merge to Sacramento Public Library. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Folsom Public Library
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

3rd nom, last closed as withdrawn by nom for procedural reasons. However, consensus seemed clear-ish for a merge, which is what I'm advocating here. However don't want to implement unilaterally following 2 AfDs. I don't think there's independent notability as there's no evidence this is anything but a run-of-the-mill library, which lacks inherent notability. Thoughts? StarM 01:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- StarM 01:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions.  -- StarM 01:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Question- If you wanted a merge, why are we here? Why not just open up a merge discussion? Umbralcorax (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Answer because it's been here three times and discussed by people who aren't necessarily watching the article. I think it's only fair to get general input (such as those who have !voted before) rather than the small subset of those who watch the talk or requested merges. StarM 12:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge as usual--I think with Sacramento Public Library, with which it is affiliated. Folsom is a small city of 70,000, and public libraries in such places are usually not notable. DGG (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge per DGG. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:29, 7 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.