Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sutter County 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 no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sutter County Library

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article has been tagged as non-notable since 2010. It's now 2018. Time to either get rid of the tag or the article. RJFJR (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge/redirect to Sutter County, California. Non-notable library system consisting of only four branches. The article does not assert notability, and has little otehr than the list of branches and other factual details (only ref is to system/jurisdiction's own website verifying these bare facts). DMacks (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Library systems are "inherently notable" or the like, effectively, in usual practice. This is good practice, like for school districts, heading off creation of separate articles for each branch library or elementary school. Of course there will exist local coverage at least, because they are publicly funded (so there are budget debates in which cutting library hours is one of few discretionary spending items that can be found)) and they are public attractions so hours and so on are always covered in various places. This is a basic reference function for wikipedia. --Doncram (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps this should be "Speedy Keep" because there is no assertion by anyone (including me) that they have made any effort to find sources. wp:BEFORE. Don't waste our time. --Doncram (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, what are you citing for inherent notability? Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#No_inherent_notability, for notability (organizations), seems to be the appropriate guideline but doesn't specifically site libraries and doesn't convey inherent or seem to convey presumption of notability. I don't find obvious references (not done looking for alternate names yet.) Does someone already have a reference? RJFJR (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article's statement that it is a library system suffices as an assertion of notability; some prefer more over-the-top assertions of specialness that in my view should not be required or much encouraged. --Doncram (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said "in practice"; that is my observation that in practice in past AFDs library system articles have been kept, and in my view that is a sensible practice. You and I may well have opposite views about the usefulness of including articles on high schools in Wikipedia; I happen to think it is stupid for Wikipedia not to do so automatically. Again this is an article about a library system, equivalent to a school system, which is a basic element of society, and is useful even for deletionists who wish to eliminate articles about individual schools and libraries. --Doncram (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Library systems are not "inherently notable," and I'm an elected library trustee for my three-branch town. There is nothing whatsoever in this article that requires more than a couple sentences in the main county article, and if a local resident has to find out information like open hours, he or she can go to the library's website. Wikipedia is still not a webhost. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine that you comment, but your association with ~~the~~ a library is not really a relevant qualification for judging what is Wikipedia-notable, and in general we don't kowtow to "experts" of any kind here. Your mileage may vary. To be clear, I was not suggesting that hours or telephone number or the like is appropriate in library articles, although external links to the library website can/should be included. --Doncram (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Sutter County Library website does strike me as relatively poor and odd in not including any history about the Yuba City library or the system, and its connection to the development of the area. I suppose there was never a Carnegie library there (there is no mention in List of Carnegie libraries in California), but it would be very natural for the website to give some history of the first public library being created and the development of the modern system. Perhaps a trustee could make a difference in seeing that the website be improved. --Doncram (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are numerous hits in the Google searches, including 24 Google Scholar hits, though some turn out to be photo credits to the library for it providing historical photos of places and events in Sutter County. The main library may be a significant depository for local history resources. One hit is for an academic article which I am not successful at reading in full, "Libraries as 21st-century learning places", by Caroline Ward. Language Arts; Urbana Vol. 84, Iss. 3, (Jan 2007): 269-272. It appears to have a significant mention of a grant program at the library which could be included in the article, though it is not substantially about this library. (bits in search result: "… hospitals. They fol- lowed up by distributing books and toys to families and ran pro-grams on babies and books at | the library. In the Sutter County Library in Yuba, California, the | grant targeted a multilingual pop- ulation. The …"). --Doncram (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I called the library and they are very helpful.
- They comment that a lack of readily available online info seems to be a function of the local paper, the Appeal-Democrat, somehow perhaps excluding its coverage from Google news, etc.
- There was a 100th year anniversary of the library last year which would have coverage.
- The director recommends a 1955 publication of the California Library Association, based in Berkeley, a book with rambling title "The County Free Library Organizing in California 1909-1918: Personal Recollections of Harriet G. Eddy". Harriet G. Eddy (currently a redlink, though there is a Harriet G. Eddy Middle School named for her mentioned in Wikipedia) was a dynamic character who went around starting all/many of the county library systems in California. The book has about two pages about the founding of the Sutter County system.

This is specific credible information that off-line sources/coverage exist, which in my view makes the AFD outcome clear. Further, this is just like for any other library system in the United States, all of which may be presumed to have wp:GNG coverage available off-line if not online. Wikipedia ought to embrace being a "gazetteer" or otherwise being comprehensive about high schools, libraries, book and newspaper publishers, and more similar topics. Cheers, --Doncram (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You know full well that it's not sufficient to allege that coverage exists: those sources must be produced. (And, frankly, if my personal experience as a library trustee isn't pertinent, neither are your personal phone calls, and you know that full well too; since when did we ever take "I talked with the library director" as evidence of notability?) Nha Trang ^Allons! 15:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not so about "production" being required; the existence of offline sources definitely suffices for purpose of AFDs. I am sorry if my comments seemed too personally directed towards you. However, you did not speak to the existence of sources; my comments are explicitly about that, and yes, my saying I have verbal/interview report explicitly on one source is certainly fine here. If you were testifying that you had gone in and looked to see that source and what else might be available and it was all lies on my part, then that would be relevant and okay to present here (though of course you won't do that). And the one discussion could have gone further about other sources, but the one seemed to be a good starting point if I or you were to take on expansion of the article, which I could do by requesting the book interlibrary loan, and knowledge/recommendation about it certainly suffices for AFD decision purpose here). I did not perform wp:OR in writing stuff into the article, i am simply discussing availability of sources here in the AFD discussion. I do hope this does not turn you off from the opportunity of developing the article yourself. --Doncram (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC) P.S. Sorry I misunderstood the commenter's stated association; I thought they were associated directly with this library. Also, FWIW, our calling the library is an excellent approach towards developing all our library articles; i should be commended for taking the step. :) --Doncram (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

non-digitilized sources are certainly valid sources, note that the back issues of many newspapers have not been digitalized, nor have a surprising number of older journals and magazines.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A county library system that celebrated its centennial in 2017, albeit in a poor, rural county with a very large non-English speaking population. I have added coverage from the Appeal-Democrat, a regional newspaper that is certainly a [[WP:RS]. I added a sampling of the articles that came in a proquest news archive search, which turned up articles that the McClatchy newswire picked up from the Appeal-Democrat. County libraries are significant, and it is therefore unsurprising that there is reliable news coverage of the range of activities that this library sustem sponsors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - County library systems, like school districts, are inherently notable as community centers, the subject of endless news coverage over launches, planning, expansion, tax bonds, and so forth. Each and every one would be a GNG pass with enough digging. Carrite (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ROTM. Nearly every American jurisdiction has a library, and this system is really no different than many other systems. Acnetj (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROTM is not policy and there's no requirement for topics to be different. Many of our topics are quite actually similar – species, places, athletes, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 13:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:DEADLINE and WP:IMPERFECT, there is no requirement to satisfy some arbitrary level of content for this topic. The evidence above indicates that the topic has potential and the current WP:STUB is adequate in the meantime. Andrew D. (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The info can be boiled down and put into Sutter County, California.
There's irony to keep-votes for this: Wikipedia is well known to librarians, yet for over 8 years, librarians in Sutter County have not found reason or material to evolve this article. -- DexterPointy (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY, I did a modest expand, source. Some material found by searching alt. name: Yuba County Free Library. Do, also check out the photo of the library's original building. As I said above, this is a poor, rural county. You don't get the kind of magnificence you find in old libraries in small Massachusetts towns, or the classical neatness of America many Carnegie libraries, nevertheless, sources now on page establish notability, even, in this, case a degree of remarkability. A public library system in a poor, rural county with a large population of non English-speakers, where almost half of the population of all ages is in possession of a library card is pretty impressive. In response to the dismissively pointy comment above, if the librarians of Sutte County are reading this; thank you for you good work and dedication. You library card numbers speak for themselves; you must be doing a lot of somethings right! E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is an obvious "Keep" in my humble opinion. --Doncram (talk) 06:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-In the absence of crystal-gazing powers as possessed by Davidson and in absence of any significant coverage about the subject, which raises above local news, the subject is clearly non-notable in my eyes.∯WBG^converse 10:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an institution that gains notability because of its continuous existence (100 years), reliable sources used, and importance in the spread of the English language and culture in a California county. Also, there is nothing in wikipedia policies that makes local news unreliable. In general settlements, schools, rec centers, and libraries are all notable, --1l2l3k (talk) 19:39, 31 July 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.

Sutter County Library

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.