Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Libraries

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. Valid invocation of WP:IAR. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Libraries

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

non-notable directory Fgnievinski (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Does not meet WP:N. Not finding coverage about the topic in reliable sources. Only finding citations, such as [1], [2], [3]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Related discussion for American variant at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Libraries (collection). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Per a serious lack of input here, pinging DGG, a librarian, in hopes to obtain their perspective. Note that this is not canvassing, as I am not suggesting how they should !vote if they choose to. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep I'm not sure about whether what content would be most appropriate, but we need to keep the article. Such things are important, especially in terms of our mission as a supporter of open resources, regardless of whether they get written about. It may be possible to justify it by the conventional GNG, but in any case I would justify keeping it by IAR. WP:N is a guideline, not a policy, and IAR specifically applies in such cases. It might be desirable for us to have other ways of handling material like like this, but at present this seems the only practical way. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Upon further consideration, per DGG's rationale, vis-à-vis WP:IAR. The article technically also qualifies as a reasonable WP:SPINOUT of the Internet Archive article per WP:SIZERULE. Also of note is that the Internet Archive article presently has a merge tag to merge this article into it. Struck my previous !vote above. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per comments above and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Libraries (collection) – Margin1522 (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2015 (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.