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, the original nominator, withdraw my request. Article needs improvement, but the library is clearly notable after reading comments left by those involved in creation of the article. Britanica article also verifies notability. I urge those close to the subject matter to improve/expand wording of the article to keep people from mistaking this is a run of the mill town library again. Sorry for wasting anyone's time here. --Airtuna08 (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Free Library[edit]

Kent Free Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:NOTE; Town libraries not notable. Only famous libraries like the one in New York City for example are notable. What's next? Town supermarkets? Airtuna08 (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This library is notable due to its status as an original 1903 Carnegie library (also see Category: Carnegie libraries), and was also partially the result of the first municipal tax in Ohio for a library. It is hardly is in the same category as a "town supermarket." Just because it's not largely well-known to you like the main New York City library doesn't mean it is completely non-notable. Further, it is part of the Wikipedia: WikiProject Ohio as part of their own Libraries in Ohio project.--JonRidinger (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And Britannica even has a cropped form of the public-domain picture on the WP article :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're different. Look at the cloud patterns. In the Britanica one, you should see blue just above the roof line if it was the same one. And it's from a lower angle as you can tell by the foreground tree. Similar (bad) photo quality though. --Oakshade (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gee thanks. Glad I made the effort. Anyway, the picture used in the Britannica article is the same picture that is used in the Kent, Ohio article, not the one used in the Kent Free Library article. Not the greatest pictures because of when they were taken (sun is behind the library), but far better than nothing. I do have plans to get better pictures when the sun is at a better angle. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't mean to rag on the photo. A non-professional looking one is better than none. Your effort was worth while.--Oakshade (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article just says it was donated by Carnegie, if the library has so much history how come the page is only a long paragraph. From reading it, I just get the impression its your run of the mill town library. If someone can expand it and show me its history of how it came to be and what not, I'll withdraw my request. --Airtuna08 (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Of course it can be expanded, but whether or not that happens will hardly determine whether your request is honored or not. As you can see, the simple fact that it was donated by Carnegie makes it notable and removes the main issue behind your request. You not being familiar with it doesn't make it non-notable. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability guidelines stipulate that an article is worthy of inclusion if secondary sources on the subject exist, not if an editor placed them in the article yet. What you want is article improvement which deletion is not. --Oakshade (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2008 (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