Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of closed stack libraries


 * 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 on the original question, but trout User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) for renaming the article while the AfD was in progress, especially since he said he would only do it if there were no objections, immediately had two people object, and then went ahead and did it anyway. GIven that there was no consensus here for a move, I'm going to move it back to the original title. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

List of closed stack libraries

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This list, if completed would include hundreds of libraries. I cannot think of an earthly reason why the world needs a list of closed stack libraries -- some libraries are closed for very practical reasons (the contents are not shelved for browsing) and others for reasons having to do with security of contents. No one is actively editing this article (I had a crack at is several years ago and it was very frustrating to do so). Thanks for considering. Merrilee (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Merrilee. Libraries that have closed stacks have them for so many, varied reasons, that this page creates confusion more than it helps a Wikipedia visitor. There would need to be substantial disambiguation regarding the particular reasons why libraries have closed stacks and which reasons apply in a given case. That disambiguation would be a daunting task and, in the end, not substantial enough a benefit to justify the work. It makes more sense to me to delete this article. Mazarines (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep If you think the reason that the stacks are closed is important, then add the information. "his list, if completed would include hundreds of libraries" ... so what, we already have lists and categories containing thousands of entries ... this list now has about a dozen entries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep We have a list of libraries, which is always going to be larger. Considerations of space are irrelevant per WP:NOTPAPER and any merger or restructuring of these lists would be best done by ordinary editing rather than deletion per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This list is poorly defined, and I'm not even sure that it could be defined in a useful way. Closed stacks do not mean that users cannot view the items, they simply do not allow users to roam the stacks. Many, if not most, libraries have some of their materials in closed stacks, either for security reasons or because of space constraints, and many libraries that have significant closed stacks have some open areas, such as reference collections. Plus, I'm not sure how such a list informs anyone using Wikipedia. As the policy on lists states: "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines." This article doesn't meet the guidelines. LaMona (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment "poorly defined", you just defined it. If you look at the list they are libraries within larger library systems, usually the manuscript, or rare book, or special collections depository within the university library system. Smaller universities might have a room devoted to special collections, but these are full libraries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment a special collections library is not necessary closed stacks and closed stack libraries are not necessarily special collections -- the special collections at the Seattle Public Library are in open stacks and are a knockout collection. The Northern and Southern Regional Library Facilities in the University of California lirbary system are both closed stack libraries that have nothing to do with special collections. Having a list of closed stacks libraries is like having a list of libraries with compact shelving, or libraries that have wrought iron staircases. It is a feature of the library that tells you almost nothing interesting about the library or the collections. Merrilee (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk  17:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wrote "... usually the manuscript, or rare book, or special collections depository within the university library system." You are taking the word "special collections" out of context, the concept equally applies to manuscripts and rare books. While a library may switch to compact shelving, or replace a wrought iron staircase with concrete and reinforced steel, they are not going to place original manuscripts, or rare books, or minimally organized boxed material on open shelves for the general public to rummage through. While most libraries have a room devoted to closed-stack material, here the entire library is closed stack. Large universities can afford to devote a stand alone library for their non-circulating, closed stack material such as manuscripts, and rare books, and boxed special collections. In some cases the library is just a room within a larger library, but still called a library, instead of a room. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is what you are really after a list of libraries that have special collections? I'm not saying that is any better as a list. And as I've stated previously, there are special collections that are in open stacks. So in fact, there are cases where special collections materials are placed so that the public can "rummage through." What do you think is achieved by having this as a list? Help me understand. Thank you. Merrilee (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Suggest moving to full article about the concept of "closed stacks" instead of "list"", per 's arguments about poorly defined list, and 's arguments about the list being nonsensical and hard to place limits on (which it is). The article could have examples drawn from this set of "closed stack" libraries, and we can make sure that we fully explore the different why's, hows, and implications of closed-stackness per 's changes. I am going to boldly make this move later today (or this weekend) if there are no serious objections,Sadads (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)'''
 * Well, I do object, mainly because closed stacks are much less interesting historically than open stacks. In fact, the entire history of library shelving itself is interesting, and there is an entire book written on the subject (Henry Petroski, The Book on the Bookshelf) that has a considerable bibliography. There is mention in some WP articles (e.g. Angus_Snead_Macdonald, Bookcase) but nothing approaching a reasonable treatment of the subject. If you would like to begin a stub on library shelving, with a historical approach, I will do my best to contribute. LaMona (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with @LaMona. Merrilee (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to moving it to Closed stack library and changing the list to "Examples", I think that would work the best and cover your objections to the list just being a small example of a large number of libraries using the system. The text can be lengthened and the list annotated as to why they use the system, if we know why: rare books, special collections, original manuscripts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Richard Arthur Norton I don't know why you insist that closed stack libraries = rare books, special collections, original manuscripts because, as I have explained and as LaMona and others have, they are not parallell. I thought we were continuing to discuss but I suppose not. Merrilee (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with the relative "interestingness" of the topic: as a searchable key-word within the field, it definitely meets our "notability" thresh-hold, and the number of sources makes a pretty good argument for drafting this as an article, because it meets WP:GNG. Eventually it might be upmerged to a larger discussion of different stack policies -but I think you would need someone with a serious history of library science focus to do the survey mentioned above. I would recommend getting a historian or student to do some of this work (however, part of me is reading this as that we should have three articles: "history of library stacks", "open stacks (libraries)" and "closed stacks (libraries)") really the problem here is that we haven't done a thorough enough study of different library science topics, Sadads (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sadads, those G-scholar articles support my argument, not yours. They are about the relative benefits of different shelving options -- not one of them is a list of libraries with closed stacks. This focus on a list of libraries is just wrong-headed, IMO. There's an interesting topic to be found in this, but a list is not of value. LaMona (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and move back to List_of_closed_stack_libraries. Wikipedia is a history resource, it and other electronic resources replacing libraries, there is absurdity in deleting a record of the closure of traditional information repositories.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - As far as I can tell, all of the keep !votes above boil down to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL. The list isn't well defined, but definition isn't the only requirement for a list to exist. Stand-alone lists are subject to notability criteria, and my search for other lists of closed stacks libraries (not specific examples) turned up almost nothing but Wikipedia-derived content. There is a better case to be made for the subject article vs. the list (although a move during AfD is frowned upon because it it confuses what everybody's talking about), but I would say delete to the subject article as well. This is first because it's just a WP:DICDEF (with a list of examples), but more importantly because I don't see sufficient sources to justify a stand-alone article. I wouldn't have any objection to merging selectively to another library-related article, though. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 21:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Library and merge any definitional elements there. The list is clearly too large for it to be complete enough to be useful in the foreseeable future.  Sandstein   07:35, 18 July 2015 (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.