Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Catholic Library (London)

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 per WP:HEY, WP:SNOW. Failure of WP:BEFORE, it appears. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 09:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central Catholic Library (London)

Unsourced orphan article with no real assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was a major uproar when plans to close down the library were announced. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . I personally feel this article should be kept. After doing a search on google there seemed to be several sites that discuss it. It seems to be relatively notable within British catholicism and theology and the source that User:Eastmain provided does establish some notability, however this is a borderline case. Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 00:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an important institution for British Catholics and is unique in its own right. Until recently it contained some outdated information but this has been cleared up (by myself, among others). The article should certainly not be deleted.Hohenloh (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --T-rex 19:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --However details of opening times should not appear here, but as a link to an external website that is (unlike this article) likely to be maintained. I note that the nomination is in fact for a redirect, not for the current title of the article. However, sicne this was its former name, the redirect should also be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:58, 26 July 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.