Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homer Public Library (3rd nomination)

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. With current and additional sources, consensus is clear to keep. A potential merger to the town's article can always be discussed on the talk page. So Why 14:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Public Library

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

This is my local library. I love it. A lot. But I am not convinced by either the sources used or the previous deletion discussions that it really is notable. Yes, it was one of the first libraries in Alaska to be LEED certified. I do not believe that confers automatic notability. Other than that the coverage is routine local coverage of the local library. Beeblebrox (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Smallish public library. Zero notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a small history section and will try to find some other things to add. It's a nicely written article and I can't think of a good reason to deprive readers of reliably sourced information about a public library, no matter how small. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That’s basically a argument to have an article on every single public library on earth, based on a WP:LIKE argument. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, allow me to elaborate my position. The page is congruent with WP:ORGSIG, especially after the information I've added about their Top Drawer Collection. This topic is also covered enough (especially with the LEED status) to pass WP:GEOFEAT. I fully agree with all past AfD Keep votes. I do not believe every single library should have its own page. While I believe library systems to be notable, it takes a lot more to convince me that a standalone library meets that same criteria. To me, this page could be a little stronger, but it's enough to pass GNG, and therefore I vote to keep. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember that a submission went through AFC covering the library system in Anchorage, which was allowed to be buried and deleted by AFC without any checks and balances by the greater community, something which happens entirely too often with AFC submissions. So your statement about library systems is nice to read, but "where's the beef?", so to speak? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ROTM local libraries, which exist all over the good old US of A. LEED certification is all good, but does not make it notable, because there will be more LEED certified libraries popping up. It is also not a competitive contest, any building meeting the requirements will get the certification (kind of like graduating from a school versus winning an Olympic medal). Acnetj (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this subject has been through AFD twice already and both times closed as clear "keep" -- I see no new information introduced here as the argument of "it's small" was already made. I'm seeing some sources that appear to pass WP:GNG to me so I don't see any policy violation. Without any new reason, this looks a whole lot like WP:FORUMSHOP.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Look through past Afd , same nominator, same kind of starting "this is my library, but I don't think it should be an article, the the other people (after relisting once) managed to find sources. Then say GNG meet. Then closed as keep. This pattern is almost identical here. For clarity, let us just use normal GNG criteria. [1] = AP (not local), one significant, independant source and that's it. Others are all dead links, trivial coverage. I will try to search Google till now [2] nothing significant I can find. 1 good source yes I cannot deny. For LEED, this is the page that should be added [3]. Marginal source but LEED is an award that cannot be discarded. He is not WP:FORUMSHOP but just no solid arguments. --Quek157 (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced, reasonable article. The fact this is 3rd AFD about it is a tad irritating. --Doncram (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like WP:ILIKEIT See also, WP:CCC--Rusf10 (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- with all local sources, coverage does not meet WP:AUD requirement of WP:ORG. The last AfD was four years ago, it is not unreasonable to revisit it now. Also WP:FORUMSHOP is a ridiculous accusation. What other forum was this brought to? AfD is the appropriate forum for this discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what that was brought up either. My thinking was more along the lines of consensus can change and that with a little more time in the rearview the LEED certification is not such a big deal as to confer automatic notability, which was a point argued at previous AFDs. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

did you see my post above with ap source?Quek157 (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One source is a bare minimum, there really should be multiple sources for WP:AUD--Rusf10 (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the page and my comments have other sources, wp:corpdepth requirements clearly met Quek157 (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not clearly met, all the other sources are local.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

minimum is two in depth source, one local at most. Quek157 (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC) can't you see the main criteria WP:ORGCRIT than the subpart at audience. I will say no more and let an admin determine Quek157 (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD clearly states only 1 regional or higher paper is needed. The Fairbanks sources are regional, almost to the point of statewide, far from Homer, AK, and clearly meet this requirement. So that rule has been met. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to town. local libraries in small communities may be important in the life of that local community, but they do not usually have the general significance to warrant separate articles. As would be expected, there are mostly local sources here, with two regional sources; such source are considered indiscriminate, because they cover everything from the area, whether or not of encyclopedic significance. To put this in perspective, this is a very small city of 5,000 population, which strikes me as more appropriately thought of as a village. The only possible special feature here is the building. But LEED silver certification (the 2nd lowest class of LEED certification) is nowadays fairly routine for public buildings --if the building is otherwise notable, we include it. The building has won only state awards, and has not gotten national attention. WP already has an article on the community, and that single sentence can be expanded a little. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of another AFD initiated by the nominator, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dianne M. Keller (4th nomination). Today's Google search isn't making this as easy to find as it was on the day I commented in that AFD, but I remember a real gem. One of the hotshit national journalists who descended upon Wasilla in September 2008 included in their story a quote from Keller that Wasilla was incorporated as a second-class city in 1974, but that she didn't know when it became a first-class city. What devotion to fact-checking, considering that last I checked, the local library (hey, whaddyaknow!) is in a lot more central location in Wasilla than is City Hall, and that five or ten minutes' worth of research at the most would have yielded the answer. I can only guess that hotshit national journalists consider it beneath them to speak to locals unless the purpose is to get a quote for a story. In today's Google search, I did find this from The Weekly Standard: "There are 7,000 people living in Wasilla, but it services about 50,000," as they quoted Keller in 2008. The city museum's page on Wasilla history says much the same thing: "The current city resident population is 7,028 with a conservatively estimated population of more than 80,000 adjacent Borough residents who patronize the Wasilla business and commercial center". I pointed out much the same thing in that AFD, a point which was aggressively avoided so that a slew of forum shopping and other actions in a related vein could occur. The end result? The small population of Wasilla within its corporate limits was used as an excuse to remove a whole host of content actually related to the city of Wasilla, which was replaced with a photo of a NRHP site located a dozen miles or more outside city limits. Many of you love playing the same tired old XFD game where slivers of content are expected to exist in a vacuum. There may be some of us worried about the bigger picture and how it's providing us with justification or lack thereof for the amount of time we devote to this project. Using deletion processes to try and force others to only acknowledge certain topics and certain sources certainly plays into that. In the real world, they call such an approach a "controlled narrative". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a little expand, source. Several statewide sources. Coverage of the new building meets WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you really love your local library, you would have already come across the book sources that I glance at every now and then which state that Homer's library had an unusually large collection in its early days for such a remote and lightly populated community and such a new library. Contrasting that information with the sources I see present in the article, especially about the library's early history, I guess the old Jimbo chestnut about "the sum total of human knowledge" is in reality "the sum total of human knowledge as found lying around on the web on one particular day or another within portions of the 21st century". The one book source I remember best was published by the Pioneers of Alaska. Are you gonna try and claim that to be a garbage source despite the fact that they typically employ an editorial process? That delves into another aspect of trying to exist in a vacuum, namely that folks are capable of noticing when fellow editors interchangeably view local sources as perfectly acceptable when it suits their purposes or garbage when it suits their purposes. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources in the article, I don't really understand on which grounds they are challenged. wikitigresito (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2018 (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.