Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johann Fust Community 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. No consensus for a particular action has emerged in this discussion. North America1000 00:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Johann Fust Community Library

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Basic lack of notability. Lack of significant coverage by third party sources. Small library on a small island, part of a bigger system. The site isn't a historic site or anything that would make it notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - It is listed as "of historic or cultural interest" in: (It has existed since at least 1962.) Also covered non-trivially in a local newspaper:  I added a few references to the article (including the three I just mentioned). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The local coverage is definitely trivial. It's hard to consider a weekly free newspaper on a tiny island to be that significant. Regardless, it's run of the mill news coverage. As for your book mention, it's just that, a mention. In an entry about the island, the library gets mentioned in a sentence. Not even a sentence about it, but a mere mention along with 3 other items, including fishing shacks. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Small-town public library. Completely NN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Boca Grande is not an insignificant place.It is a discreet place and part of 2 counties. This library has a foundation: http://www.jfcl.org/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmccook (talk • contribs) 20:02, April 30, 2016 UTC
 * Nobody said Boca Grande was insignificant. It's actually a pretty interesting place. This discussion is about the library not being notable. You're incorrect that Boca Grande is in 2 counties. It's not. The village is in Lee County. Part of Gasparilla Island, not Boca Grande, is in Charlotte County. The existence of a foundation doesn't make it notable.Niteshift36 (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The island is in two counties and if residents need library services and live in CC they can use the Furst library so the 2 county geography has impact. The foundation provides an insight into library funding that is different than most institutions.Sorry about signature and appreciate you adding my name.Kmccook (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The impact of a library on 2 communities doesn't make it notable. Reliable coverage from reliable 3rd party sources does. That's what this lacks. BTW, Charlotte residents on the north end can also use the Englewood branch, which is one the way for them going on and off the island.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to Boca Grande, Florida as it's likely best connected there, nothing else convincing for its own article. Notifying for librarian analysis.  SwisterTwister   talk  23:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Consensus is that community libraries, much as I love them, are not suitable subjects for articles.It should perhaps be mentioned in the article on the place, slong with all other significant community institutions- (the current article is about two topics only: the history of the location, and fishing) but I do not think there is a need for an actual merge.  DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  23:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Niteshift36 has removed all the sources I added. I conceded on two of the three, but one of them is appropriate. The guideline they cite for removal, External links, clearly states "This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section." The reference, #FFF68F, should be restored to the article. The source lists the library in a section titled "of historic or cultural interest". Why remove a source that isn't clearly inappropriate or malicious multiple times from an article you've already nominated for deletion? — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As I explained in the edit summary, the section was labeled wrong. It wasn't being used as an inline source, nor is it a note. The sections were incorrectly labeled and those headers have been fixed. So your citing inline citations is wrong. It is an external link and, as such, isn't a good one. It's a mere mention. This part of the discussion probably belongs at the article talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the change of the sections headings, I didn't even notice that. See WP:FNNR. They are not external links, they are general references (see WP:GENREF). The notes above are the inline citations (see WP:INLINECITE). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, this belongs at the talk page, but since you insist on discussing it here.... Read FNNR. It clearly states that "references" is the most frequently used title. That makes sense since the template used it called the REFlist. Regardless of what you call it, you are NOT using the works as inline citations, so your claim is completely wrong. The Lee County reference is an inline citation. The 2 foundation links are inline citations. This article has 3 inline citations. Go read WP:INCITE and learn what one is before you make another incorrect claim about them. Please take any further discussion to the article talk page, where it belongs. THIS discussion is about the (lack of) notability). Niteshift36 (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Read WP:GENREF, A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a "References" section, and are usually sorted by the last name of the author or the editor. ... If both cited and uncited references exist, their distinction can be highlighted with separate section named, e.g., "References" and "General references". This discussion is directly related to deletion, as whether the article is suitably referenced is something that is taken into consideration at AfD. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 01:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

What part of "this discussion belongs on the talk page" is failing to register with you? The mere mention in a single sentence in a book has no bearing on this discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at File:Wikipedia layout sample Notes References.png from WP:FNNR, the section titles were correct before you swapped them. And I see you removed them again while I was typing this, those are not further reading, they are general references. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 01:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What part of "this discussion belongs on the talk page" is failing to register with you? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Note - I noticed this the other day, but just decided to mention it now: There is a misplaced Keep !vote on the talk page of this article, from what appears to be a new user, . — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 02:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge into Boca Raton. It's sort of notable, but not really, yet much of the information is useful for the overall project. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm presuming you mean Boca Grande, not Boca Raton, correct? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, typo. :-) Bearian (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Keep because it is covered non-trivially in verifiable sources and has existed for decades. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Age means nothing and the coverage by the local, weekly, free paper isn't that non-trivial. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Çomment two seconds of searching turned up this: http://scholar.library.miami.edu/treasure/chapters/chaptr11.html On the face of it, I don't quite see enough here or on the wiki article to strongly vote Keep, but given how extremely easily I found something new to add to it I'd at least lean very very slightly towards Keeping it. Mathmo Talk 06:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I found that too.....and I didn't really consider a paragraph and a half from a catalog of exhibits to be "significant coverage".Niteshift36 (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2016 (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.