Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Balch 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. I'm withdrawing this, and since there is no delete !vote, I'm closing as keep. It can always be merged after discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Balch Library

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Small town library of no historic importance. No third party references. As a librarian myself, I do not like to nominate library articles for deletion, but including branch libraries (unless they  are not in an historic building is usually excessive. ) This was part of a university project. They should have had better advice about what topics were acceptable.  DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Misapprehension Hi DGG, you seem to be operating under the misapprehension that this is a small-town lending library with a nice background story and a special collections dept. I followed that assumption at first, but it seems to be a dedicated research and archive library, so, while I actually suspect that many small town libraries merit pages on Wikipedia - and I gather that you don't - I do think that we can agree to assess  the notability of this one by a different standard.  Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge – To Leesburg, Virginia, including the photo. The last time I !voted to delete the small-town fire department, but that ended up as merge, so this time I'll try merge. Also it has a collection of archive materials related to the Civil War and the Underground Railroad . This story from the Washington Post is about a monograph on James Monroe's slaves, published by the library, and there are several more from an oral history project in Google Books. Maybe not enough for a separate article, but worth merging. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've added a the 'reliable' source mentioned about the libraries published research.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Both notable and referenced with reliable sources. Please note that the article only had 2 references when it was nominated. It has been expanded and referenced significantly since its nomination. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Named after notable scholar. Charming (my personal opinion), free-standing building designed by a notable architect.  Library has an endowment.  Has a Friends of... committee. Plenitude of scholarly references to use of works found there.  Oh, and I just found that it won an architectural prize for a 2003 addition.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a contributing property to a historic district.  Ironically, the article about the library contains more information than the article about the parent historic district, although I've come to expect such articles.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep If members of a university should want to write about a library, this seems a excellent scholarly topic for us to support. WP:N is just a guideline, not a hard rule, and so there's no necessity to disrupt this activity and there's a superior policy which suggests that we should consider the higher good.  In any case, I had no difficulty finding more substantial sources about the library, which no-one seems to have considered yet and so, per our editing policy, we should continue to develop the topic further using them:
 * The Thomas Balch Library Mural
 * Thomas Balch Library: A Monument to the Father of International Arbitration
 * Thomas Balch Library Historic Newspapers Collection
 * Andrew D. (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To reply:
 * The 3 sources listed above are pamphlets published by the library, not substantial or independent sources. Similarly, the other sources added are trivial mentions.
 * The basis of WP:N is the policy, NOT DIRECTORY, which is the reason we do not cover all local institutions. IAR to avoid the unduly literal specifics of the GNG is a good thing;  IAR to make us into a directory is can destroy the encyclopedia. For non-notable organizations, their  page on the web meets their need, and the need of the public.
 * For people who want to write about libraries, decisions here have general held that city or country libraries are notable, not branch or town libraries. That leaves a few thousand good article topics available.
 * Most buildings building in a historic district are contributing properties. This includes, for example, every house on my block.
 * Similarly for architects:there are a very few famous architects whose every building is notable. This is not the case for most architects, any more than every book is notable for most writers I see the architect listed has   notable works, but not this one.   DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, WP:NOTDIRECTORY is more of a stylistic policy, saying that we shouldn't have phone numbers, like the yellow pages; prices, like a commercial catalogue; or schedules, like a programme guide. We have none of those things here and, even if we did, it wouldn't be a reason to delete, as we could just take them out but leave the other content, per our editing policy.  The main point of WP:N is that we need reliable sources so that the content can be verified while avoiding original research.  I consider that the sources available are quite reasonable for this purpose.  I doubt that any readers will be surprised by the presence of this article, nor consider that its deletion would improve our coverage.  The idea that having such articles will destroy the encyclopedia seems to be absurd hyperbole. Andrew D. (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I am part of the reason this article was submitted. I teach a course in library history and have been proud that students are working to expand library entries. I am not sure how I might have limited the options and provided better advice and it seems to me that public libraries are very important in their given communities for different reasons and different times. It is very difficult to anticipate that this or that community is unimportant or have a guideline for doing so. I am thinking of a modest library funded by an African-American community pre-segregation that is now a true branch of a larger system but it not architecturally  a standout. Yet it is the heart of its community. I will work to give better advice, but I do think that  encouraging librarians to participate in Wikipedia is a positive.Kmccook (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an interesting article about a public library that serves both a small community and as a research site for the underground railroad, something that is rare. The building is historic and has won an award as a prime example of a Waddy Woods building built in the Greek revivalist tradition.  The only reason I see mentioned for its possible deletion under Wikipedia's deletion policy is "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline." Reviewing the notability guideline, it is clear that there is verifiable information and secondary sources.  There are 14 sources, of which only 2 are arguably not secondary.  This article meets the notability guidelines as defined.  In addition, it fits in nicely with several library related guidelines as shown.Petercannon usf (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This library was designed by a notable architect, is the winner of a design award, is in a historic district, is the site of a research center on an important historic topic, and was a lending library at a time when most others were no longer so. Also, the number of sources included in this article has been greatly expanded. User:James E. Scholz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient secondary sources to establish notability.  Clearly more significant than a random branch library, plus a structure from a notable architect.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:48, 2 March 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.