Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rossford 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. Tone 16:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Rossford Public Library

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of this article is not notable (See WP:NCORP). There are two sources used in the article. The first is reliable, but just gives rote facts about the library that could be generated for any library. They are not notable statistics. The second appears to be a platform to self-publish library statistics. It does not appear to be a reliable secondary source. The second half of the article appears to be self-promotion or news which isn't appropriate for a Wikipedia article (See WP:NOTNEWS). ParacusForward (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  16:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just a library in a small town. Completely non-notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 18 November 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) 02:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep there is significant coverage of the library's architecture and renovation. There is significant coverage of its history project. There is also some coverage of the library itself. The article needs some work but the subject seems to be sufficiently notable to meet guidelines. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I think I would change my opinion to keep at this point. I am impressed by the improvements Candleabracadabra was able to make to the article. I think this article now meets the general notability guidelines. ParacusForward (talk) 17:40, 24 November 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.