Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerber/Hart 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. - Bobet 11:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Gerber/Hart Library
Non-notable library with 14,000 books. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Though libraries are not merely judged on size, their website claims that they are "Midwest's largest LGBT circulating library," which is significant and notable. This library also seems to have historical and cultural significance. Haiduc 02:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There are four modifying words here "Midwest," "largest," "LGBT," and "circulating." Should we also have an article on Scranton's largest voodoo circulating library? Fiji's largest heavy metal music collection? These aren't siginificant. Of course on their own web site they'll claim they're important; look at the web site of any NGO, church, Masonic lodge, etc. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sure that if we look long enough we could find a bubble gum wrapper library somewhere. It would not be significant either. But a library that holds materials on a topic that is of critical interest to a sizeable proportion of the population because they are being discriminated against, and to another sizable proportion because they deeply believe in the rightness of the discrimination, and that started gathering such materials when they were still relatively rare and even banned, is anything but marginal or non-notable. Haiduc 11:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a subjective judgement, not an evaluation of notability. Notability is not subjective.  The reason that the hypothetical bubble gum wrapper library will not be notable will be because no-one independent of that library will have published non-trivial works of their own about it.  And the reason that this library is notable, is that such people have.  The fact that it has been noted demonstrates that it is notable.  The primary noability criterion doesn't require editors to make subjective judgements of what is important to, or famous within, any particular community. Uncle G 12:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, good point - and good resource on notability. Haiduc 04:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I found over 14,000 hits on Google using "Gerber/Hart Library" (with quotations). That seems fairly notable.  I don't see the harm in keeping it.  Even if it were a non-notable library, I can see tremendous value to having comprehensive information on all the libraries of the world.  This is, after all, a project devoted to giving everyone in the world the sum of human knowledge, and that is also the role of libraries.  Someone looking for academic  resources might find this useful. -- Samuel Wantman 07:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Counting Google hits is not research. A search for me by name garners (as of today) 16,000 hits, and I'm not verifiable.  Research involves reading the pages that the search tool turns up.  Research involves looking for sources.  Demonstrating that this library is notable involves finding a source other than its own web page.  Please learn and always remember the lessons of  and .  The subject's own web site is not to be trusted.  Uncle G 14:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Really, do you think we are being duped into believing this is a real library? I went to Google to check out what this library was since I knew nothing about it.  Every hit I looked at confirmed that it is what that article said it was, and it reinforced the idea that it was a notable library.  That is more than enough for me.  I am of the opinion that notability is over-sold as a reason to delete articles.  I think articles about less-notable  topics have to be shown to have no value to the project.  So I've stated why I think this is of value.  We can make judgements weighing many factors. -- Samuel Wantman 06:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Really, do you think we are being duped into believing this is a real library? &mdash; Please don't use straw men. Every hit I looked at &mdash;  As I said above, research involves reading the pages that the search tool turns up.  Now read what you actually wrote, and the argument that you actually used, in the first paragraph. Uncle G 09:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, Sorry I wasn't more descriptive in my first post, I tried to explain it in my second. I went to Google and at first did a search and found  171,000 hits.  Then I narrowed down the search by using the quotation marks and found over 14,000.  Then I looked at and read all the hits on the first few pages that convinced me it was real and notable.  It was you who assumed that I only looked at the Library's own website.  I'll take responsibility for misleading you about what I did. -- Samuel Wantman 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course - ill-thought-out nomination to AFD. Davodd 08:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Snarky again Excuse me - what is the point of directing this at me? Why is it keep "of course?" Why and how is it "ill-thought-out?" Why do you refuse to respond to simple and direct questions on the Talk page? Leave me out of it, and vote on the merits of the article. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of avoiding angry mastodons, I apologize if you believe I attacked you personally. That was not my intent. I believed that the article was rushed to nomination for deletion without adequate research into the nomination or the concept of notability of LGBT-themed articles. It was the process of nomination that I was criticising. I mean we have articles such as Convent Station (NJT station) - random commuter train stop - as well as Kathy Caraway Elementary School with an enrollment of approximately 500 students. What is the differentiating factor that makes this library less notable than these established WP articles? As a library, it is ho-hum, but as a resource of the LGBT community in the Midwest U.S., the library is a big deal. Finally, if you leave a note on an article talk page without response, you may want to prompt the user you want input from with a message on his or her User:Talk page. Because some apparent refusals to respond may be honest ignorance that a discussion is happening in the first place. - Davodd 01:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep libraries are important cultural markers. I would say it is not the size of the collections per se (& before you slam me, yes I agree that there is a minimum size/circulation below which this doesn't count . . . I don't know what that would be but I'm sure someone can figure it out) but it's importance.  Also its availability to and actual use by the community.    In this case all three criteria seem to be met.
 * Comment: It is my opinion that with cultural institutions of various sorts there importance (and therefore notability) cannot always be measured by size. I would give the examples of two US museums, the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston MA and the Frick Collection in NYC, both smallish (especially in relation to other cultural institutions located in their respective cities) but important.
 * I would also like to point out that a cultural institution's raison d'être doesn't have to be to the particular taste of every Wikipedian to make it notable. I for instance think a many of the painting in the MoMA are idiotic (the ones where the canvases are painted all black using what appears to be a paint roller suitable for painting interior walls for instance).  But this doesn't mean I'm going to put the MoMA up for deletion.
 * So I would say that, yes if there was an important circulating library of Vodou religious texts & thought in Scranton PA it should be included, (I realize that someone THOUGHT they were making an absurd joke, but Scranton PA is a heavily Catholic college town and in the Western Hemisphere for historical reasons the Vodou religion has developed ties to Catholicism, so QED . . .). Thank you CyntWorkStuff 17:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - interesting and relevant subject, don't see why ew should delete it.--Aldux 11:13, 12 August 2006 (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.