Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inner Temple Library: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
r |
→Inner Temple Library: keep |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
*'''Keep'''. The library is part of the [[Inns of Court]]. Further, the [[Inner_Temple#Library|subsection]] says, "The original Library existed from at least 1506, and consisted of a single room." To me, add it up (along with other things) and the library itself seems quite interesting and notable, at least to those interested in libraries, more notable than being placed in a subsection of a larger article. I say consideration should be given to moving the subsection into the Library article to keep, then add a link that says see more detail there, and so on. And the article could be built up -- I wouldn't kill it at this early stage. If it proves useless in the future after good faith efforts to make it Wikiworthy, that's a different story to be considered at that time. For now, I say it's a keeper. That aside, as this is library related, let me point out a [[User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling#COI_notice|possible COI]]. --[[User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|LegitimateAndEvenCompelling]] ([[User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|talk]]) 14:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Keep'''. The library is part of the [[Inns of Court]]. Further, the [[Inner_Temple#Library|subsection]] says, "The original Library existed from at least 1506, and consisted of a single room." To me, add it up (along with other things) and the library itself seems quite interesting and notable, at least to those interested in libraries, more notable than being placed in a subsection of a larger article. I say consideration should be given to moving the subsection into the Library article to keep, then add a link that says see more detail there, and so on. And the article could be built up -- I wouldn't kill it at this early stage. If it proves useless in the future after good faith efforts to make it Wikiworthy, that's a different story to be considered at that time. For now, I say it's a keeper. That aside, as this is library related, let me point out a [[User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling#COI_notice|possible COI]]. --[[User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|LegitimateAndEvenCompelling]] ([[User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling|talk]]) 14:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
*:It being old is not a valid keep reason - as said, that could cover every building in Inner Temple! Find me some ''independent'' coverage that passes [[WP:GNG]] and we'll talk. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 15:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC) |
*:It being old is not a valid keep reason - as said, that could cover every building in Inner Temple! Find me some ''independent'' coverage that passes [[WP:GNG]] and we'll talk. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 15:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep'''. The version I read would appear to easily meet the basic notability guideline. Other sources I found confirm this library's status as an archive of important legal manuscripts.[http://books.google.com/books?id=9M4LAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA227&dq=%22Inner+Temple+Library%22+-inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false] Generally speaking, very old state-related institutions can't avoid becoming notable, by dint of sheer persistence. - [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] ([[User talk:Ihcoyc|talk]]) 16:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:13, 25 November 2009
- Inner Temple Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not independently notable of Inner Temple. While there is coverage of the library, it mainly in the context of or as part of the Temple, and I see no reason to keep an article around when a similar subsection is elsewhere. Arguments that it is notable for age are non-starters; by that logic, almost every building in the Temple is! Ironholds (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Merge to Inner Temple as described. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. The library is part of the Inns of Court. Further, the subsection says, "The original Library existed from at least 1506, and consisted of a single room." To me, add it up (along with other things) and the library itself seems quite interesting and notable, at least to those interested in libraries, more notable than being placed in a subsection of a larger article. I say consideration should be given to moving the subsection into the Library article to keep, then add a link that says see more detail there, and so on. And the article could be built up -- I wouldn't kill it at this early stage. If it proves useless in the future after good faith efforts to make it Wikiworthy, that's a different story to be considered at that time. For now, I say it's a keeper. That aside, as this is library related, let me point out a possible COI. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- It being old is not a valid keep reason - as said, that could cover every building in Inner Temple! Find me some independent coverage that passes WP:GNG and we'll talk. Ironholds (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. The version I read would appear to easily meet the basic notability guideline. Other sources I found confirm this library's status as an archive of important legal manuscripts.[1] Generally speaking, very old state-related institutions can't avoid becoming notable, by dint of sheer persistence. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)