Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gadsden County Public Library System

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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gadsden County Public Library System

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

Non-notable library lacking any coverage in reliable sources Meatsgains (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local public library systems are rarely notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Public library systems are almost always notable. It works for us to allow articles about the systems, and discourage separate articles about each separate branch, like it works for us to allow an article for every school system while disallowing separate articles about each primary school. --do ncr am 21:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This library system has a dissertation written about it, literally! I added Linda R. Most's 2009 dissertation as a reference to the article, although I drew just a very little bit of information from it so far. Library systems are really important, including in rural, impoverished areas like Northwest Florida. Even if there weren't a book-length study specifically about this specific library system, we need articles about them. --do ncr am 22:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Credible case for inherent notability, as described above, plus the sources about the topic that support the claim. Alansohn (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not all public libraries are notable, has been the outcome here. However, this is one in a fairly large if rural county (the county in FL), so Keep. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am inclined to treat public library systems as we do high schools — as community landmarks, each inevitably with a documentary history in the periodical press concerning their conception and creation and operation. Sources are sparse here and the article is far from perfect, but a GNG pass over a low bar, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gadsden County, Florida. Merely an aspect of local government like any other; libraries are not inherently more notable than, say, fire services, police services or other public services. Sandstein 07:53, 15 December 2016 (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.