Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oyster Bay - East Norwich 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   merge to Oyster Bay. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Oyster Bay - East Norwich Public Library

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Another article on a non notable building created by the author that is already recognised to have a COI. Paste Let’s have a chat. 16:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - It is a reasonably good and thorough article, but is doesn't satisfy notability. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 17:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I am really troubled by this article being called for deletion. I agree with you the building in and of itself does not have great significance. The fact that it is a functioning library serving several thousands of people does seem significant though. In your zeal to erase articles for a place I am fairly sure you have little or no experience of, you are now targetting important, viable community institutions.
 * Significance Comes from being a Library, not a building

And as for a COI, please, I am not paid to do wikipedia articles. And if I do have pride in my community, might it be possible that is entirely separate from my job? Perhaps my inspiration comes from being the 11th generation descended from leading figures in Colonial America who first settled that Oyster Bay, and by extension I want to celebrate what they helped to create. Think about that for a moment before you keep systematically attacking my work.

Inoysterbay (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Oyster Bay — sourcing is sufficient, so content could reasonably be merged, and no reason not to have information on the community article about the library. Nyttend (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm sure it's hard not to take AfD nominations personally, but User:Paste's focus on your work doesn't appear out of line to me. If one or several additions by a new user seem questionable, I believe it is appropriate to check their other contributions, too.  Perhaps focusing on developing the more clearly notable articles in your interest area, and developing them further to take to wp:DYK or wp:PR, both to avoid AfDs and to involve constructively other editors from various wikiprojects, would be more satisfying for a while.
 * About the notability stemming from it being a library in active use, and a community cornerstone, that is not enough on its own to establish wikipedia notability. You may easily have been misled by looking at other of the 14 library articles in Category:Public libraries in New York.  Of the first six there, three are about places listed on the National Register, for which notability is clear.  The other three in the first six are just about community libraries, seem directory-like, seem like they are not encyclopedic and perhaps should be AfD'd and deleted.  Two or all three of those have "orphan" tags, indicating little support, scrutiny.  So, while this one is actually written as well or better as those three, it is unfortunate but those are not necessarily adequate models.  There is a relevant dictum that "Wikipedia is not a directory", see wp:NOTDIRECTORY, worth reviewing.  Also there are detailed standards for assessing wikipedia notability that have been worked out for various types of difficult articles, such as for musicians and for schools, where there has been a lot of past controversy.  It has generally been agreed that any high school is adequately notable, but elementary and other lower schools are generally assessed to be non-notable.  I don't know of specific guidelines or past precedent on libraries in particular, but i think they are more like elementary schools, and would need to meet notability on other grounds (such as NRHP listing).  One can list the branch libraries in an article about a large library system, such as Los Angeles Public Library, but only the individually notable ones deserve/need articles. doncram (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Oyster Bay as per Nyttend. I agree, there is nothing notable about this to warrant a separate article but the historical info is useful. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge as above, fits well in Oyster Bay but lack of independent notability. Being a library does not provide inherent notability unless there's something about the building - national registry listed or similar. StarM 02:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Oyster Bay History Walk as that article is in the process of being expanded to contain the information from the series of articles of which this one is part. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and merge. I just noticed a related article, Stoddard House was Deleted by closing admin Fritzpoll.  It should have been kept, and this should be kept so that we who are working on the History Walk article have access to them.  And eventually they may be replaced by a redirect, depending on how we sort out what goes into the History Walk article vs. a separate article.  We could also find more information in the process.  It makes more work, is not helpful, if the material is deleted. doncram (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Oyster Bay, needs some trimming but could be just a section in the Oyster Bay article. No sure the Oyster Bay Historic Walk is the right place as that doesnt appear to be particularly notable as an article either. MilborneOne (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct me if i am wrong, someone, but "Merge" is not a choice in AfD discussions, is it? It has to come down to Delete or Keep, I believe.  I would prefer to interpret this "Merge" vote as keep, with a general expression of sentiment that its content be merged to elsewhere, and then the article is to be converted to a redirect.  I think i go along with. (But, depending on how the Oyster Bay History Walk article develops, maybe there will be sufficient material for keeping this as a separate article anyhow.  It is actually fairly historical, and documented, just not enshrined as a U.S. registered historic place.)  Anyhow the current tally is one "weak delete" and about 8 Keeps then, by my interpretation, so i think this AfD can be closed as Keep (with whatever admonishment the closer wants to make that we should indeed consider merging and eventually redirecting, which we will). doncram (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment merge is a perfectly valid choice. It means the material likely should be kept (degree may differ) but not where it currently does. The AfD closer can merge it if there's a consensus target or leave it for other editors to do. Often if the content isn't merged after AfD (timeframe varies) the article ends up back at AfD. The AfD can close as merge, there is no consensus to keep. Also, it's not a tally, so the numbers don't matter. StarM 03:14, 25 April 2009 (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.