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) — Yash ^talk stalk 08:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catoosa County 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)

This article should be deleted as it fails WP:GNG as it is not covered in reliable independent sources. A WP:BEFORE search found no non-trivial WP:RS for use in this article. It also fails WP:GEOFEAT as it is not covered substantially in reliable independent sources. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 15:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'll be honest this surprises me, you might as well AfD my entire stub list on my userpage if this isn't enough to meet stub quality. I've been told library systems meet inherent notability in the past by at least a half dozen NPPs who have patrolled my stubs (of worse quality than this page) and from the conclusions of a few AfDs on other library system pages I've seen result in keeps. Apologies if this isn't enough, I'm going to go back through all my old stubs and make them Start class once I finish Georgia as a whole. I was hoping my flawless track record with article creation would have given me the benefit of the doubt, but since not I'll go back and try and get some meaty references for you! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The article doesn't really address the library as a structure, so WP:GEOFEAT isn't terribly relevant. More a case if it meets WP:ORG, I'd say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know! Appreciate the insight. I just expanded the page, should meet GNG now. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Single library in a small county. Not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sure it's a small library in a small county, but according to WP:ORGSIG places with a demonstrable effect on local history, culture, education, etc have some notability. The last sentence is why I direct you to that page. Not all public libraries have a Geneological and historical room, this one does. Would it be helpful to include more information about this room in the article to add more notability? I've already added secondary sources, per WP:ORGIND just looking for ways to help this process. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just not notable no matter what else you add. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize, we simply disagree is all! I don't see how adding more good references can do anything bad for the article though, so this weekend I'll go get more secondary and tertiary sources. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It fails WP:GNG as it is not covered in reliable independent sources. I love libraries and small towns, but it fails to meet notability. In addition, given the advent of the internet, inexpensive e-books/Amazon Kindle, the argument that small, local libraries have inherent notability is a less powerful argument if Wikipedians informally indicated this in the past. Knox490 (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being a pain and commenting on everyone's votes but I want to improve as an editor and have my questions answered. In terms of your critique, how is this article not covered in reliable independent sources? Only 3 of my 15 sources are primary, the rest are secondary. Each secondary source is additionally published by a company unaffiliated with the local library. As for reliability, they are published by the county historical and genealogical societies for the most part. Again, unaffiliated with a library, but basically serving as the holy grail for county history information. Who else can be more reliable to find a history of the county, and thus the library, then the people who have collected all county documents since its founding? Thanks! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets GNG. Library systems are indeed usually notable, and other AFDs about them have affirmed that. It is good to have system-level articles, avoiding need to have separate articles about component library buildings or historic defunct libraries. This is like our having school district articles, to which new, marginal articles on elementary schools can be merged/redirected. In this case I like the history section provided.

I searched a bit and do not find there to have been any Carnegie library or other historic library building in Ringgold, or Fort Oglethorpe, or otherwise in Catoosa County. This is the go-to article about libraries in Catoosa County. We are lucky to have editor Semmendinger contributing. "Keep". --doncram 22:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it's not a "library system". It's a single library, the only one in a small county. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is recognized by the State of Georgia and the Georgia Public Library Service as a library system. This is more apparent from its history. Should they add another library branch as they had in the past it would belong in this article as this is the article for the system. Just like another page Easton Area Public Library is ostensibly named for one building but it still a library system. I agree that if this was an article about one library in Catoosa County it wouldn't meet GNG due to WP:GEO. But, as someone already said above, this isn't an article about a specific library and thus belongs in WP:ORG I'd edited the lead to reflect this confusion, perhaps I should have made it better known from the start but I figured it was fairly obvious from the wording already and from the rest of the article. Library systems don't have to have multiple branches, and thus that's just how these things are named. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as library systems are inherently notable and the article has been greatly expanded and referenced since this AfD was created. --pmj (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nice article. Can't think of a good reason to deprive readers of reliably sourced information about a public library. Station1 (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG. Andrew D. (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2017 (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.