Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tool libraries in Canada


 * 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 List of tool-lending libraries. Split decision. Merge Sudbury, all others keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Tool libraries in Canada

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Series of articles about tool-lending libraries in Canada, none making any substantive claim of notability per WP:ORG and all relying almost entirely on primary sourcing to the libraries' own websites — except for the occasional citation to census demographic data for the city that the library in question happens to be located in (which is not coverage of the libraries), the only reliable source anywhere in the entire set is a single article about the Sudbury library in the city's local community weekly (which would be acceptable as one source amid a diversity of sources, but is not widely distributed enough to confer WP:GNG by itself if it's the article's only source.) "Notable because it exists" is not a thing we do on Wikipedia — notability must be earned by meeting specific criteria that none of these claim to meet, and/or referencing the topic far better than this. (And for what it's worth, while I can't actually prove anything, something about the fact that these all happened at once is pinging my conflict of interest radar.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I rarely disagree with Bearcat but I'm seeing some surprisingly news significant coverage, just by clicking on the "news" links above, from major papers like the National Post, Ottawa Citizen, Toronto Star... not little mentions in many cases but actual articles. Sudbury's the weak link, to be sure, but that one aside, the other cities' tool libraries may well have garnered enough coverage to meet notability minimums.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * I only recently set up the Tool Library sites, and fully intend to include links to various newspaper (National Post, Ottawa Citizen, Toronto Star) accounts to establish notability minimums. Although most of the news coverage is for the major city tool libraries e.g. Vancouver (1st), Toronto (most branches), Halifax; Sudbury was interesting as an outgrowth of the public library system. I set up the sites, after reading about the Ottawa tool library and in a similar style to the other Canadian public library sites I put together. Victoriaedwards (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So you did create and the sibling sites? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that since Bearcat created this group nom, she continues to spawn more articles, or at least, this one, anyway: London Tool Library. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep the following four below. Meets WP:GNG. Sources below.
 * Toronto Tool Library :, , , ,


 * Vancouver Tool Library :, , ,


 * Halifax Tool Library :, , , , ,


 * Calgary Tool Library :, , ,


 * Sudbury Tool Library – Merge to List of tool-lending libraries. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to warrant a standalone article.
 * – Also please note that on Wikipedia, the absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable. Topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. North America1000 18:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * I have to agree, Keep all but Sudbury. As for the new London tool library article, I see a London Free Press article and some sort of London community paper article. 22:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:07, 28 April 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.