Preston Public Library: Previously nom'd as a mass deletion.  In my review I'm not seeing how this passes WP:CORP .  I was looking and I may have missed it but I'm also not seeing a blanket GNG exemptions to libraries.  The coverage seems trivial when there is some.  Unbroken Chain ( talk ) 18:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions .  Unbroken Chain ( talk ) 18:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – I'd say GNG is the more accurate measure just because a library is a place and this isn't really about it as an organization.  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd actually assume N:ORG applies as it does to other non profits.  I don't find coverage to indicate the library meets it, but redirect to Preston, Minnesota as a viable ATD.  Star Mississippi 22:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Previous experience has taught me that notability of organizations can be more muddied when they tick other boxes (e.g. a place).  The recent debacle I had about school districts is a good example of that ( Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 188#School districts and GEOLAND ).  Anyways, since no one has linked it yet, this is the link to the previous mass AfD linked in the nomimation.  I've searched for previous AfDs about libraries to see if there was any particular recurring argument that comes up during these and so far I've found: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sutter County Library – no consensus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams County Public Library – mass nomination, merged to respective locales Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halifax North Memorial Library – redirect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catoosa County Library – kept, arguments were about GNG, not ORG Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huron County Library – deleted, arguments were about GNG, not ORG Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a little muddy with non city museums too, since they tend to get more coverage than your regular small town org.  And like libraries, they're an org in and of the place, especially local history ones.  To me it remains the best barometer since it's easier to address depth vs. x museum / y library hosts this event.  Star Mississippi 23:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you can still use GNG as a metric while discounting "library hosts this event", given the latter is very routine coverage.  I've never tried to use something of that nature as a claim to establishing notability.  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Preston, Minnesota#Education .  I don't see this having independent sources showing notability meeting GNG or NORG.  Stub article so I boldly moved the sentence and added refs to the existing education section on the target article.  Even if it meets a guideline, not everything needs a stand alone article, as it stands, this is an unneeded CFORK of the education section on the main article; the content will be better at the target and provide a place it can be developed.  // Timothy :: talk 01:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Preston, Minnesota#Education , now that it already has been merged.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:19, 5 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect