In the deletion discussion the author should be able to prove notability. Absent that, the community will able to decide the article's fate. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I would also contact the author explaining myself. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 23:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Tricky. My elaborate (but fake) answer is: Most of the current content of the article, especially in its unreferenced form, is not suitable for inclusion, and the inevitable immediate stubbifying would leave nothing but the mere assertion of the library's existence. I would probably go for prodding or an AfD, provided that either (1.) the library does not exist, as confirmed by town officials (after unsuccessful attempts at contacting the author for any sources or explanation, and after an unsuccessful search for any sources) or (2.) the library is confirmed to exist but reliable sources cannot be found to justify an article. Depending on the precise title, redirecting the page may not useful, even if the library's existence can be confirmed. If the title is e.g. simply "Smithville library" (which is a plausible search term), the current content should still be deleted, and the page then recreated as a redirect. Since under my assumptions there is no material to merge beyond, at best, the library's existence, there is also no GFDL conflict. My simple and truthful answer is: After stubbyfing the article to remove any unsourced material which might be construed as libellous and after glancing at the author's contribs and unsuccessful contact attempts, I would probably prod the article. If someone removed the prod, I would then AfD it after a while if nothing new comes up. Dorftrottel (harass) 01:17, April 13, 2008
seems clearly NN. If the town article does not mention the library, add 3 words. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
If I was feeling charitable. More likely I'd just shoot it on the spot: "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". Angus McLellan(Talk) 23:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
db-attack I would do it without hesitation--this is a fairly common situation for schools. There isn't enough there to rescue. Explain to the author about how to do acceptable articles, but also alert him that almost no articles on town libraries have ever passed AfD. DGG (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The article makes some rather pointed claims and is not suitable for inclusion. If somehow an appropriate article is possible, the deletion debate will at least force it to come about soon. If there are no sources I could find, merging or improving the article is not an option. Mangojuicetalk 03:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If I were feeling charitable, I'd stub out, removing all the defamatory and personally identifying stuff, then PROD it, leaving a note for the original author. If I wasn't I'd just speedy it (both are supported by policy). ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd PROD it and notify the original author with my reasoning and relevant policy. If they contest, I'd move on to AfD. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Content not verifiable in a reliable source. Post to author's user page letting them know to either improve/support the article or expect it to be deleted. -- Levine2112discuss 18:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Prod and/or AfD, after checking for sources. Make the deletion reason friendly, as this looks like a good-faith effort. Fram (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If it can't be speedily deleted due to patent nonsense, then prod it, the AfD if no improvement is seen. Note that in this example, if you take out the POV sentences you have almost nothing left, so a speedy delete for having almost zero content may be warranted. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I would put it up for Deletion, it seems to verge on Patent Nonsense. I would, however, make sure to contact the orginal author and suggest if he can provide Reliable Sources, that he may include a section on the library in the Smithville article itself. --God Save the South (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't try to get it speedy deleted, since it doesn't really meat the criteria for nonsense or blatant advertisement. At that point, the consensus may end up being to merge, in which case reliable sources would be needed. Ketsuekigata (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
AFD, because I feel that the burden lies on the author to assert notability. shoy 16:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It's poorly written, unsourced and most likely irrelevant. Notability can be established in discussion--AkselGerner (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Prod, then AFD if contested. I'd assume it's a good faith, so I'd be polite about it, and make sure the author knows our procedures. Pfainuktalk 21:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
PROD. There's no notability asserted, and there are no sources. SKS2K6 (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Not something that has its own merit to have its own article; not notable --BirdKr (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Also contact author(s) who should be able to verify notability if it deserves an article. WP:AfD will help sort out its worthiness of deletion. --Shruti14tcs 23:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd take it to AfD and leave a message on the creator's talk page asking for comment/response to my reasoning. Enigmamessage 05:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This one's interesting, but it seems that it is more along the lines of a boring summer afternoon fairy tale someone wrote to pass the time. I'd take it to AFD and ask the author to comment if possible, assuming its not just a drive by account/creation. Dusticomplain/compliment 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
AGF has little to do with this problem, in a way. The real problem is no evidence in the article of notability, nor any facts very likely to be notable to an article on the town itself for merging. An AFD would be notified to the page creator anyhow, and AFD rationales could be the above plus "Although good work has gone into the page, it really doesn't seem there is material suitable for an article on the library here. If there are any facts here suitable for the town article, then they may be useful to merge, but it doesn't immediately look like there are any." That should soften the "sting" a bit if any. FT2(Talk | email) 11:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The article would find a better place in the village's newspaper. Chenzw (talk·contribs) 11:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Tag it, inform the author, the process allows them to establish notability if they disagree. --Nealparr(talk to me) 07:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Not an AGF issue at all. AGF plays a role how you handle the deletion request, perhaps; you should assume the author created the article in good faith. But that alone doesn't make it notable. csloat (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Invite the article author to the RFD discussion. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There's no Internet page for the library? Hoax has to cross the mind, AGF or not. As it is, there's no references, very little of the article would stay in any conceivable situation. Best thing is to clear it out and help the user see where they can improve the encyclopedia better. It could be redirected, but a redirect is sort of useless and silently "deleting" the page is more user-unfriendly than AfD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No internet site? If the page doesn't have any sources, post it for AfSD. If there are sources, but you can't obtain a copy, post it for AfSD.-- Emprovision (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
ProD the article and place {{subst:PRODWarning}} on the user's talk page. If the prod is contested, then take to AfD. Bwrs (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Badly written, no sources, POV, non-notable. Delete. --Iamzork (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Although I am quick to contact the author of a new article and work with them to improve it, this example seems engineered to assert absolutely zero notability. I don't see a prayer. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Almost all of the NPOV information is in reference to the town itself not the library. That information should go there and this article deleted.Felixmeister (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing there worth keeping other than that the town has a library. But if the editor is a newbie then a redirect to the section of the town that mentions the library might be more humane. ℑonathan ℂardy(talk) 07:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no harm in putting it up for AfD, as it will be decided at AfD whether to keep, delete, merge, or redirect the article. Calvin 1998(t-c) 17:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
An issue of verifiability. Not finding a library in the phone directory is a real red flag that the article is not real. Sjakkalle(Check!) 11:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Putting it up for deletion allows the community to look and agree upon it. — Parent5446☯(msgemail) 19:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
In this case there is insufficient content suitable for Wikipedia and it does not adhere to NPOV. GB86 05:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
If there is the needed notability for inclusion, it would be easy to find. I'd put it up for AfD, but not add a CSD tag. Allmightyduck What did I do wrong? 15:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
After tagging for refs, sources and others I would add to AfD as it is non notable, unsourced and unverified. AfD would weed out the consensus but more importantly it would bring quick closure to the merge/delete/improve possibilites before others wasted their time on an article which really seems non-notable, If it is notable then someone will either rescue it or recreate it fairly quickly. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Prod. with the following reason: "Subject is unsourced and non-notable as per WP:GNG." Guoguo12--Talk-- 19:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Afd it. Someone, somewhere might have a RS, but the seven days should be enough time for the authors to come up with something, if they can. Doesn't meet V or GNG. VanIsaacWScontribs 08:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Putting the article up for deletion will let other members take a look. It will allow them to see whether or not they agree or disagree for deleting the article Amandaaa99 (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps not the most good faith thing to do, but I would. See above comment, also. Eman235/talk 04:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
CSD per notability. Not going to waste editors time with this.Iif someone can save it or provide rationale that makes CSD not applicable, this is deletable. Melody Concertotalk 03:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
