Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries

WikiProject Libraries
WikiProject Libraries
Main / talk
Introduction
Main / talk
Members
Main / talk
Resources
Main / talk
Assessment
Main / talk

WikiProject Libraries


Table of contents

Goals and scope

Goals

  • Coordinate maintenance of library-related content
  • Develop and discuss proposals for improvements to Wikimedia (especially literature-related sites) based on library experience
  • Assist at the Wikipedia Reference Desk
  • Assist with categorization

Scope

This WikiProject covers all areas of library and information science, including (but not limited to):


To do

Article alerts and assessments

Automatically generated list of new articles with Library keywords

Article alerts

Categories for discussion

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees


Museums and libraries AfDs

Muse Art Gallery

Muse Art Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No WP:RS Of the refs that aren't deadlinks, none rise above a press release. Also, WP:COI. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaali Sudheer (2nd nomination) Theredproject (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Sagar World

Sagar World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NCORP due to a lack of in-depth, independent, reliable sigcov. Opting for AfD over PROD due to possibility of sources in other languages. SITH (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Deseret Museum

Deseret Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Religious POV, no clear notability Noahhoward (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The Encyclopedia of Mormonism and the Utah Historical Quarterly are both respected scholarly sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as has historic notability as shown in the multiple references already in the article that link to reliable book sources so passes WP:GNG and deserves to be included in Wikipedia Atlantic306 (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perhaps even speedy (bad nom - religious POV is not a deletion reason). WP:NOTTEMPORARY - would a 50-year old present day majority museum be notable? Yes. Google books has a whole bunch of good hits, e.g. - [1][2][3][4]. Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject matter is not relevant. It throws up plenty of solid RS from independent sources (as listed above). It’s notable. Britishfinance (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no religious POV. Spicemix (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
      • @Spicemix: Article has since been improved from original which described mission of museum "an institution dedicated to spreading knowledge". Noahhoward (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Invalid reason for deletion, institutions wit a religious POV can certainly be notable when, as here, sources exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

SAILS Library Network

SAILS Library Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. Prod was removed by the article creator with the explanation that "library systems are generally considered notable", which is absolutely false. Come up with a reliable non-local source that discusses this quasi-governmental agency in detail and I'll happily withdraw this. Stating there is something inherently notable about a library system is both false and lazy. I see nothing either here or WP:BEFORE that shows notability and WP:OTHERCRAP is just that. John from Idegon (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

There are numerous examples of library systems being kept as inherently notable (I gave Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catoosa County Library or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gadsden County Public Library System as examples in my edit summary). The most prudent example might actually be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North of Boston Library Exchange, which is a much more poorly sourced article on an almost identical library network that was kept at AfD. @John from Idegon, if you feel these sorts of articles should not be kept, please also add the following to your nomination so that we don't have to litigate them one at a time:
(I'm not trying to claim WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS by listing these, just trying to save time by consolidating). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 20:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    • This is not a referendum on the notability of libraries in general, but rather on whether this library is notable. They are not and this not the place to discuss that. I'd say if you want to establish some sort of consensus on the general notability of libraries, WP:VPP would be the place. So no, I won't be doing that. John from Idegon (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment, there is an article in Computers in Libraries, listed here, more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I do not like how this page is listed for AfD less than 3 hours after it's creation, that's not assuming good faith, and gets a little close to WP:BITING (in fact, this exact scenario is nicely outlined there). I would like to try and help this article before I make my final decision, for now though this page is strikingly similar to dozens of other library consortium pages, most of which can be found at the Category:Library consortia page. I would like to note that despite what the nominator claims, library systems are historically voted as "keep" at AfD a large amount of the time. This is not a referendum on this page as it currently stands, but is it say there are countless examples in the talk page of WP:Libraries and in other places to show that library systems are generally notable. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
At one time, all Pokemon were considered notable too. If you want an WP:SNG, propose one. We have draft space to develop articles. No article should ever come to mainspace that does not meet WP:GNG. If I had found sufficient sourcing, I would have draftifyed it. I didn't. Take your aspersions and shove them up your ass. John from Idegon (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm absolutely appalled at that last statement. Nothing I wrote could have possibly prompted such a horrifying response. See WP:CIVIL SEMMENDINGER (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
"Typical! Its all about bottoms with you wikieditors."Face-smile.svg (with apologies to Fawlty Towers) Coolabahapple (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Museums and libraries Proposed Deletions

I am one of the student workers at Illinois College who is editing The Paul Findley Congressional Office Museum. The student before me did not do a good job, so I am now editing the page and adding sources. However, I only work on fridays for 2 hours. I ask that you please allow us to continue to make the page better and not delete the page. Bran890 (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Article assessments

Display assessment table

Article identification and assessment

Writing new articles

Group collaboration

Collaborate for two months on a single article to develop it up to Featured Article status!

Fact checking and adding sources

See also

See also all subpages of WikiProject Libraries.

Cleanup

See the cleanup listing generated by CleanupWorklistBot.

Related WikiProjects

Additional resources

Projects of the Wikimedia Foundation

External links