Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box 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 merge to Wiltshire Library and Information Service. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Box library

This seems to be one of an intended series of articles about libraries in Wiltshire. Editor name suggests a COI. The articles themselves (2 so far) are near-identical and give no particular information other that what would be expected for a library. Fails WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ros0709 (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to (and create) Wiltshire Library and Information Service. While the individual libraries are likely not notable, the greater system might be. TravellingCari 02:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...or Merge both into their respective towns, Box and Aldbourne. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to all three articles referenced by both TravellingCari and Brewcrewer; no need to avoid duplication, as the information is relevant both to the locale descriptions and to the library service as a whole. IMHO, county and district library services are generally notable (like school districts), but individual libraries not so. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The vast majority of libraries are not notable, and this is no exception as evidenced bt the fact that this article could be about pretty much any library in the world after changing a word or two. Merging two utterly non-notable things into one article doesn't seem very logical to me, as unless I'm missing some important point here the resulting article would be non-notable as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to appropriate locations. They're not notable on their own but could be mentioned elsewhere as part of a more general topic. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I added some references to both articles and created Wiltshire Library and Information Service. I discovered a royal visit to one of the library buildings here. I disagree with Starblind (talk • contribs • count), because I think that references from reliable sources exist for most public libraries. It's just that finding those references can be difficult. -- Eastmain (talk • contribs • count) 16:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Libraries are a bit difficult to place. I think reasonably large library systems are encyclopedic, an opinion I hold because the public library systems in Bergen and Oslo, as well as the university library in Trondheim, have articles in paper encyclopedias. A small local library however, does not really stick itself out more than a grocery store. As a branch of public service however, I see no harm in covering it in some form. Merging looks like the best compromise. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:09, 21 October 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.