Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homer Public Library (2nd 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   keep.  Sandstein  10:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Homer Public Library
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is our local library. It's quite nice for a small town library, and their sales of older books have fattened my collection of hard sci-fi immensely. In short, I like this library and everything it stands for. However, I think it is a bit silly to have a Wikipedia article on it. It's a small town library, and not terribly notable. The references in place are mostly from the local papers. While I would certainly consider them both reliable sources being reported on by them is not exactly a sign of notability in the sense of general notability in an encyclopedia. I've been interviewed by our two local papers a total of three times, and trust me, I'm not anybody of note. The remainder of the sources are a USEPA page which seems to be a dead link, and a link to some sort of corporate website, also a dead link. Like I said, it is a very nice facility for such a small town, but ultimately that is all it is. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Beeblebrox, I think you underrate the value of the Homer library. Pretty much every library in Alaska with the exceptions of Anchorage and Fairbanks' libraries might be considered small libraries by Outside standards. Being the third LEED building in the state is quite significant, I'd say, and it has served as an example and standard for other buildings . Quite a few articles on Alaska institutions and personages get nominated for deletion due to their lack of notability, supposedly, but in a small state a small institution has much more proportionate influence. It sounds to me like the real problem here is that the links are outdated and the page needs cleanup. That's a different matter than needing deletion. I vote for keeping it. Deirdre (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine how you could think I underrate the value of the library when I made it abundantly clear that I value it very much. What I doubt is its general notability. Even if the links were updated they are not really any good as far as notability, and the local paper isn't either. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that it has served as an example for other projects? What were those other projects? Where is the coverage which states the Homer library was their inspiration? How does being the third building to meet a particular standard confer automatic notability? I don't see any backing for any of those positions, they seem rather to be your opions. I'd be happy to be proven wrong if you can supply evidence to back your position. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm somewhat rehashing my argument from the last deletion discussion. Working on updating/reorganization of Portal:Alaska and WP:ALASKA.  This gives me too much information on what exists and what doesn't and what might need to exist at some point.  The approach to creating articles used thus far and its organic nature reveals huge gaps.  I bet there'll be an article on Ahmaogak Sweeney (currently enjoying a buzz in the media for his role in Big Miracle) before there's articles on any number of actually notable Iñupiaq (like his grandmother, perchance?).  The public libraries of both Anchorage and Juneau are lacking articles.  In these cases, notability exists both due to the history of the establishment and the architecture of the buildings.  Compare with articles such as this, Haines Borough Public Library and John Trigg Ester Library, whose comparative notability is questionable.  The George C. Thomas Memorial Library can claim substantial independent notability, so I won't complain about this community having two separate articles on its public libraries.  People who don't know any better will run with what you give them, but only what you give them.  Also, perhaps "Being the third LEED building in the state is quite significant, I'd say" requires addditional explanation, because it sounds to me like you're fetching for a reason.RadioKAOS (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

 Comment The architect firm apparently got a couple of awards for the building: 2007 Honor Award • AIA Alaska Chapter, 2007 Member's Choice Award • AIA Alaska Chapter State Convention, 2007 Best Non-Residential Award • AIA Alaska Chapter State Convention, 2007 Judge's Choice: Community Beautification Award • Homer Chamber of Commerce, 2006 People's Choice Award • AIA Alaska Chapter State Convention. / Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added some references and the awards. Although the library is small it has gotten quite a bit of attention due to its new building and LEED certification. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Small libraries are not usually notable, but the LEED status (with the relevant references) make it so. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Appears to meet wp:notability.  North8000 (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep References meet WP:GNG significant coverage in reliable sources. Per criteria in WP:NONPROFIT, this small organization has received recognition in the form of state and national-level prizes. Djembayz (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2012 (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.