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 redirect and merge. DGG makes a good case for keeping, but the consensus here is to merge to Simsbury, Connecticut which can be done without losing much of the relevant content.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

RS coverage is limited to events at the library and construction mentions. The ranking is sourced, but I don't know if that's enough to meet WP:ORG for local organizations. Creator was the librarian TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As fond as I am of names that end in "bury", I have to say Delete, any useful material can be added to the Simsbury, Connecticut article. There are far too many libraries in the world to have Wikipedia have an article (or even a redirect) on each one. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge As per previous comment regarding the redirection into the Simbury article. A well-written article, to be certain, but of no particular notability as a standalone entity. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of the ranking. "far too many" is not a deletion consideration--it's one of the classic NOTs. There are many fewer libraries than villages, for example. In fact, there are fewer than 10,000 public libraries in the US. Not that we should have all of them. But this is in the top 1% by the accepted ranking index and that's sufficient. Its good to have a real criterion in the nebulous field of local institutions. DGG (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was only ranked by some random dude, though. In any case, it is not like the Simsbury CT article is overflowing with information. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That random dude is the guy who for decades has compiled what are the standard ranking in the field. See Public library ratings. There's a little controversy, but it's still the standard & there is no other similar ranking. They're published in American Libraries, the official publication of the American Library Association. DGG (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry DGG, but on what basis do you describe Hennen's ranking system as "the standard"? I note that his rankings are self-published. 152.3.51.23 (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: to Simsbury, an article that's none too large. I note that the HAPLR ratings DGG describes are tagged in the very article discussing them as highly controversial, indeed so much that the section on the controversy is several times larger than the single paragraph citing their existence. That scarcely seems to me to represent a "standard" measure.  RGTraynor  19:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are controversial--and they are nonetheless the standard that continues to be used by the American Library Association and published in their official journal. That the accuracy is disputed doesnt affect it. We go by V. DGG (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind sourcing the assertion that the ALA considers these rankings the standard? It seems, at the very least, that many people disagree.  RGTraynor  01:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Simsbury, Connecticut. No independent secondary sources. The HAPLR rating reference is merely directory information, not commentary or coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per SmokyJoe. This article by itself doesn't have enough references to enable this article to be a stand-alone article. Most of the current references are not suitable for this kind of article. Razorflame 01:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as it is ranked highly, but is not otherwise notable. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:04, 3 May 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.