Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen Sound & North Grey Union Public 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Owen Sound & North Grey Union Public Library

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article doesn't seem to credibly indicate the notability of this subject. I tagged for A7, but this doesnt cover buildings (although I thought it counted as an organisation, but never mind). Benboy00 (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Benboy00

We are new to this and still learning.

Owen Sound & North Grey Union Public Library is a public library in Ontario, Canada and like the many other public libraries that are found in Wikipedia we wish to share the history and services (past and present) of this institution.

The service has been provided in part since 1855 and the 1914 Carnegie Library is about to celebrate its 100th anniversary. The physical building is of heritage status and the organization is one of the oldest in Owen Sound, Ontario, Canada.

Osngupl (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. I notice that your username has the same initials as the article you created. I suspect that this infringes wikipedias policy on usernames (WP:U). In a nutshell, wikipedia doesnt want organisations or groups as editors, it wants individuals. By choosing a name that seems to represent an organisation, you violate this rule. I appreciate that you are new to this, but please read the username policy, because this account will probably be blocked. I'll put some stuff on your talk page to help you. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Likely keep - I'm sure that the references can be improved to show notability. A 100 year old Carnegie Library surely has more than this in the way of mentions in reliable sources.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Currently, the "History" and "Architectural Highlights of the Carnegie Library" sections are copyvios of this page at the library's Web site. Unless a valid OTRS ticket is filed, these parts of the article, in their current form, will have to be removed. Deor (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Uncertain The library as a library is not notable, except as being in a building that might be. I am trying to figure out whether it would be a good idea for us to regard every individual Carnegie building as notable--though there are common elements, they are all different. (As Deor noticed, that part will in any case need to be rewritten.)  DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete The article makes no assertion of significance. Let's be clear, the article is about the Library, not the building that houses it. To opine that the subject should be notable is not the same as presenting sourcing that shows it to be notable. The WP:CSD tag was removed on grounds of A7 not applying to buildings. Once again, the article is about an organization housed in a building. It is not about the building. The article makes it plain that it is about an organization that serves a locality and its taxpayers. The full list of services offered at the library make it promotional in tone. "The Library is our passport to the future," is, (as a former library board member I can assure you) the sort of pap that goes on a library's web page to stir up emotion and support. It is promotional. This heavy sourcing from the subject's webpage may be used only for factual sourcing apart from establishing notability. That the building might be notable is insufficient rationale for keeping the article about the organization it houses. The only sourcing in the article for its status as a Carnegie library is the subject's webpage, and so would need to be reliably sourced. The subject does not meet the WP:GNG. Dloh  cierekim  15:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Change to keep I've changed my opinion on the matter, though there needs to be better sourcing and the promotional material in the article needs to rewritten. Dloh  cierekim  23:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep Its assertion of significance is that it is a Carnegie library, one of only 125 in Canada. The Library has always been in that building, so saying its about the Library and NOT about the building is a very weak argument. Being as the Article is less than 30 days old, I say give it the benefit of the doubt as there is enough history to the organization and the building to flesh out a fuller Article. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be interested to know if anyone has access to the full text of "...a case study conducted in 2007 that examined the Owen Sound (Ontario) Carnegie Library as a place."
 * I dont think a thing (in this case, a building) should be thought of as notable just because there aren't many of the same type in that country. By that reasoning, there should be an article on each of the 125 libraries in canada as well as the other 2300 in the USA and UK. It is very clear that the majority of this article is about the library, and not the building, which is why I initially nommed for CSD A7. Benboy00 (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I can only get March on the journal. File a request WP:RX, maybe? Chris857 (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have obtained the journal article through my university - it is a 28 page document and looks to be quite in-depth from a brief scan through. Regrettably it's not an open journal and there's a scary copyright message there so I'm not able to forward it on.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

 Keep for now. From the discussion above, it looks like it can be fixed instead of deleted. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, per arguments above and also "Griffis, Matthew (01/06/2010). "Living history: the Carnegie Library as place in Ontario". Canadian journal of information and library science, 34 (2), p. 185." Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:41, 31 December 2013 (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.