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. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Hoek Library[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero indication of notability, most of the content is about the town, not the city. No independent references Jac16888 ^Talk 12:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Zero notability" means it should not have come here in the first place; but, as you brought it already I say Delete, per nom. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and maybe revisit after a year has passed. It is a first article created by a new editor, and wp:BITE applies. Per discussion at the creating editor's Talk page, it was then being created as part of a wikimedia event, the Western Cape Libraries edit-a-thon. The article seems perfectly factual. There are many articles about individual libraries. It can be asserted that "wikipedia-notability" of this particular library is not yet established in the article. So it would be nice if the editor could try to find other coverage of the topic in newspaper or other sources separate from the library's own publications, to add to the article. Is the building historical or distinctive in any way? Anyhow, keep for now. --do ncr am 01:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a small thing that could be added: The library has a monthly "literary tea", e.g. where long-time journalist first-time author Claire Robertson discusses her novel "The Spiral house" (about the tea); the book was favorably reviewed in the Cape Times (copy of review here). So I am sure by the way that there will be multiple mentions of the library in newspapers, at least in calendars for hosting of events like this.

Also, I tried a Google search and found some articles (one involving "Cakes"?) there, but the link from Google goes to the Cape Times website where it wants me to create a one-week trial account. Maybe at this link or maybe that is a temporary link. Someone else could/should search the Cape Times for articles having significant coverage of the library. Given that the new editor probably did not try this, and given that there quite likely is coverage there, I say Keep unless or until someone with access checks and says that the library is not notable. --do ncr am 01:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For much the same reasons as mentioned by Doncram. Also this article falls within WP:LOCAL and although there is not unanimity on this issue I feel it does give weight to the argument for keeping it.--Discott (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LOCAL subject to removal of off-topic forking. Fish Hoek is a separate article.Helen Online 11:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.