Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delmar Public Library

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 delete. BJ^Talk 04:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delmar Public Library

All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:CORP. Iowateen (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct and merge.......although the question is do we put it in Delmar, DE or Delmar MD? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article cites no reliable sources, and doesn't indicate its notability of the subject. Brian Reading (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this belongs in WP:ODD. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is meant to be a joke. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete as copyvio of their web site, [1] Articles that read this way almost always are.DGG (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. A brief search has thrown up only their own site, Yellow pages listing sites and the like, the library's own "MySpace" page, etc. If there is substantial independent coverage then the onus is on anyone wishing to keep the article to show it, but this has not been done. The article gives no sources at all, except the library's own web site. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added references. The article includes a history. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Added references": yes, but they are only references to the library's own site, the site of the local authority which runs the library, and a directory of libraries. None of them could by any stretch of the imagination be called independent coverage, let alone substantial independent coverage. Still no indication whatever of notability by the standards of Wikipedia's policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2009 (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.