Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tool libraries in Canada

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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

List of tool-lending libraries. Split decision. Merge Sudbury, all others keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Tool libraries in Canada

)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Vancouver Tool Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Toronto Tool Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Halifax Tool Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Calgary Tool Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Series of articles about tool-lending libraries in Canada, none making any substantive claim of

conflict of interest radar.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rarely disagree with Bearcat but I'm seeing some surprisingly news significant coverage, just by clicking on the "news" links above, from major papers like the National Post, Ottawa Citizen, Toronto Star... not little mentions in many cases but actual articles. Sudbury's the weak link, to be sure, but that one aside, the other cities' tool libraries may well have garnered enough coverage to meet notability minimums....
    talk) 18:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the following four below. Meets
    WP:GNG
    . Sources below.
  1. ^ "Toronto's first Tool Library gears up to open in Parkdale". thestar.com. 5 February 2013.
  2. ^ "How-to books and tools to do the job: Soon, Downsview library will offer both". thestar.com. 9 April 2015.
  3. ^ "Tool Library's Alternative Gift Fair lets you swap your items, land free gifts". thestar.com. 12 December 2014.
  4. ^ "The Toronto Tool Library Brings a New Model of Resource Sharing to Parkdale". torontoist.com.
  5. ^ "Thousands of loans later, Toronto Tool Library turns one in Parkdale". insidetoronto.com.
  • Sudbury Tool LibraryMerge to
    List of tool-lending libraries
    . Source searches are not providing enough coverage to warrant a standalone article.
– Also please note that on Wikipedia,
the absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable. Topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. North America1000 18:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I have to agree, Keep all but Sudbury. As for the new London tool library article, I see a London Free Press article and some sort of London community paper article. 22:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:07, 28 April 2015 (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.