Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everett Public 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everett Public Library

Library with no claim of notabilty Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 02:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article makes some claims of notability for the library, such as operating the first bookmobile service in Washington state, having two full-time historians on staff, having a building designed by a locally notable architect, and having a significant history dating back to 1893. Also, the 1904 Carnegie Library building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, though this article isn't really about the 1904 building. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No national notabilty though, just local notabilty (and I personally don't think that having two full-time historians in the staff is notable, most librarians with college degrees are historians as well), and also does it have any sources that is not the library themselves, an article can be created on the building and merge whatever useful info there. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 02:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When did "national notability" become a Wikipedia standard? Your also using classic "straw man" on your counterargument. You were presented with three counts of notability, you chose the weakest one to argue, and ignored the other two. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources are given for the article's above-mentioned claims of notability, and the article even admits that some of the text is cut-and-pasted directly from the library's own website, possibly making this a speedy delete. wikipediatrix 03:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the section that was copied has been rewritten by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). John Vandenberg 03:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in lacking any notability. I do not think libraries are inherently notable Corpx 05:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. Libraries are not inherently notable, and there is nothing particularly notable about the supposed "firsts" this one incorporates. You could probably find similar unique points to mention about practically any oldish building. Gatoclass 05:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article isn't about the building, its about the institution, which has been housed in multiple buildings over the years. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert easter egg references to in line references. The article is already well referenced with Easter Egg type citations. A quick Google search turned up lots of other articles on the library in the Seattle Times and other papers. It only takes a few nanoseconds to run a Google search. Please do some due diligence before nominating something for deletion, a simple reference tag would have done the job. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"everett public library" gets 21,000 google hits. A search on my local university library gets a total of 115,000 google hits, and I wouldn't think of doing an article on it, although an article on the university itself would obviously be justified. You say "a quick google search turned up lots of other articles" - if they are from reliable sources affirming the library's notability, why not reference them in the article? My point is basically that the article as it stands does not establish the library's notability, but if someone can demonstrate some concrete evidence that the library is notable, I might be persuaded to rethink my vote. Gatoclass 07:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it only gets 576 unique hits, and unique hits are what matter. The rest are duplicates from the same sites again and again. Of those 576, not all are even about this same library. wikipediatrix 18:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And 200 book hits (26 are limited preview), and 18 scholar hits. Many of these are merely crediting the library for images or assistance, however this book reviews the library and its collection, giving it four stars - above the average rating. And this which covers this library and 14 other landmarks in Everett and gives a short description of why travellers might enjoy including it on their itinerary. John Vandenberg 03:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Only two decent references are need to determine notability which is defined as "... received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Did you read all 21,000 Ghits and determine that are all irrelevant? At this point I can't even be sure you read the article itself, if "[your] point is basically that the article as it stands does not establish the library's notability." The Easter Egg citations were converted into traditional inline citations last night, before you wrote this, and three additional references were added, including the Seattle Times and and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A puff piece in "Snohomish County News" hardly rates as "signficant" in my view. Neither does an article on a restoration project for the bookmobile. In short, neither of these references have much to say about the library's notability per se. I get a local paper delivered free every week which would certainly qualify as a reliable source and which is crammed with local interest stories like these, but I'd be unlikely to use any of them to justify a Wiki article either.

I guess the fact that it is on the National Registry of Historic Places might arguably establish notability, but then there are over fifty other such buildings in Snohomish County alone, can you imagine how many such articles would end up on Wiki if there was an article for every such building around the world? If Snohomish is any guide, there must be over 100,000 such buildings in the US alone.

So I'm still inclined to the view that this building is of marginal notability at best. But I'm certainly not going to argue passionately for its exclusion. Gatoclass 21:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus for some reason that places in the National Registry are notable (I don't agree with that, I instead support a merge of all those buildings without further notabilty, but I'm not willing to argue as well) Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 21:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A puff piece in "Snohomish County News" hardly rates as "signficant" in my view. I think you're misreading what "significant" is supposed to be about. Here's what WP:Notability says:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.

That significant coverage can come from any reliable source, whether it's the Snohomish County News, the Snowmush County Picayune or the Podunk County Perspicator. (oops, forgot to sign) Noroton 00:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a technical POV, you may be correct. However, policies are not absolutes (see WP:IGNORE) and an element of judgement is always required. In my judgement public libraries are simply not a notable enough subject as they are ubiquitous, unless there are exceptional circumstances indicating otherwise, and I hardly think being the first library in Washington State to provide a bookmobile service qualifies as sufficiently exceptional to merit an article.

As I said below however, I think there are slightly better grounds for keeping the article based on the historic value of the building itself, but the focus of the article would then need to be changed somewhat. Gatoclass 02:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its always sad that the local papers don't get archived online. Here in New Jersey there are 6 papers, but none have archives online, and they don't have a decent website either. So much history isn't available, I wish Google would scan papers the way they scan books. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Original library building on the national historic register. Weakly notable, but enough to favor a keep (unless there's a concensus on libraries that can override this). Needs a library infobox at the top. — RJH (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep solely as it's on the National Register of Historic Places. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and rewrite to be about the Carnegie library. Corvus cornix 18:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article makes explicit claims of notability, including NRHP listing, backed up by reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 19:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be renamed and rewritten about the building then, not the library, I'll change my vote to keep if someone is willing to do that Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 20:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If as you say there is a consensus that buildings in the Register are notable, then I think a rewrite emphasizing the building itself with mention in passing of the achievements of the library as an institution would arguably be a sounder approach. Gatoclass 21:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it meets WP:V, WP:Notable and has a nice picture, to boot. Noroton 00:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I know this looks like a local library like others, but has historical significance and several sources to assert notability (at least the history of it) - so that's a passJForget 02:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any local library is notable if at least two independent media outlets take notice of it and write about it in enough detail that an article can be written, and not just a few sentences. People are under the misconception that notable, means the "oldest, biggest, or best" like in Guinness World Records. It just means that media outlets have taken notice of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 08:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI don't understand why this library is being asked to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia when other libraries in the same geographic vicinity (King County Library System, Pierce County, Bellingham) have entries that are not being challenged.Mollybird 18:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Mollybird. 8 September 2007[reply]

The existence of other articles on the same general topic is not a valid reason for keeping them. Maybe all these articles should be up for review. In fact, I might go and check the other ones now :) Gatoclass 22:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to architectural importance, having two full time historians on the staff, and having what is considered an excellent digital repository for a public library. The article has been expanded. John Vandenberg 07:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Wikipedia search shows 32,568 entries, from those smaller (and less notable?) such as Hamet and Haines Borough to those much larger (more notable? such as Seattle, Los Angeles and Vancouer, B.C. Seems a senseless waste of time for Delete-Hawks to investigate and apply the same standard to all 32,568 entries, many of which contain no useful information. This one has interesting facts, useful links, and (yes!) even a nice picture. Notability may well be in the eye of the beholder. --Lizhawk1 03:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more like an argument for deleting masses of these other entries! And just because other questionable entries may exist is not a valid argument for keeping this one. However, your comment does suggest that perhaps it's time Wiki developed a clear policy regarding notability where libraries are concerned, because 32,000 entries "many of which contain no useful information" sounds like a significant and growing problem to me. Gatoclass 02:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Everett Public Library is home to the world's oldest bookmobile - international notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgemmer (talk • contribs) 18:01, 12 September 2007

No, that's wrong. The article only says it is home to the oldest bookmobile in Washington State. Gatoclass 02:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Main library building alone would merit an article just for its architecture. But lumping (having the article cover the broader topic) rather than splitting seems entirely appropriate to me. - Jmabel | Talk 06:40, 13 September 2007 (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.