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)[reply]

Thomas Balch Library

[edit]
Thomas Balch Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew D. (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[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.
More