Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of university 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 DELETE, with recommendation to categorify. See Category:Academic libraries. It occurs to me that someone might want the list to do the categorification; if someone is genuinely interested, ping me and I can drop it off in your userspace subject to the usual provisos. -Splash - tk 16:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of university libraries

Wikipedia is not a mere collections of internal links, bordering on linkcruft. Almost all universities have libraries and the article does not discriminate between particularly noteable and non-notable libraries (this has been mentioned on the article's talkpage). On top of that, a portion of the links are redlinks at this point. Hence, I'm thinking delete.Seed 2.0 13:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list is probably better served by Category:Academic libraries. Some of the individual libraries at these universities are notable for their rare collections, but a category is more maintainable than a list. (By the way, anything that's in the list that isn't in the category should be added to the category.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I think that's an excellent suggestion. -- Seed 2.0 23:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the above suggestion of Category:Academic libraries. Bearian 23:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rebecca 01:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not a vote, please provide a reason. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 00:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every university has a library. Most of them will be notable enough for articles of their own. Some will not, but should at least be mentioned in the article on the school--if they had a distinctive name, as even the minor ones generally do, that would be a redirect. But if we use only a category how do we get the minor ones into the category? This is one of the advantages of a list--it can include logically related but relatively non-important material. DGG 01:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No offense, but not every school's library is deserving of an article on WP. That's exactly my point. WP is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Honestly, I'd prefer not to rehash WP:Categories vs lists and WP:Categories, lists, and series boxes because we've done that about a million times. I'm okay with editing and adding (where appropriate) this list to Category:Academic libraries but that obviously doesn't make every school's library immune to WP:NN. -- Seed 2.0 02:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and reorganize in sections I looked at the article again, and it is a very incomplete and erratic list--too much so to be useful.

For the US, it gives a small number of universities only, and for most of the few included it lists some of their many campus libraries. In a few cases the individual subject libraries are notable, such as the Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library at Columbia, but almost all subject branches would not justify an article any more than most university buildings would. So this part is not convertible into a category under its current conception--but it could equally well be argued that it is not needed, since the libraries could be grouped by University in appropriate articles.

For Europe, it usually lists one library per university, even when there are several, and this part could be handled by a category; most European universities do not have major subject branch libraries.

For Australia, it lists many libraries per university, almost none having articles.

For Asia, it mostly groups them by country and lists very very few.

It would take work to make this a useful list, but it could be done. if handled by category, it would take enormously more work to make all the stub articles needed and this could not immediately be done. A manageable alternative would be separate lists per country or per continent, with them worked on in their different appropriate ways. I've userified it; if deleted, I can quickly start new & better lists for people to work on. if it is kept, the various people interested could work on improving it section by section. DGG 03:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorify per Bearian and WP:NOT#DIR. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorise, if not delete per Bearian. List is unmaintainable and there are 100,000+ universities around the world that has libraries. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reorganize, categorize -- I'm with DGG, above. The current list is not helpful but a list of libraries by continent or country would be... the current library categories are erratic and need to be cleaned up as well, but could be used for this. -- phoebe/(talk) 00:38, 10 April 2007 (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.