try to get information from anywhere, including outside WP, author, then relevant wp projects. Much of that article would go, leaving a stub like article. Dan Beale-Cocks 22:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
There may be some ways to determine whether this library is notable:
Is its architecture distinctive? (A building built in 1939 might be a good Art Deco structure unique for that area of Iowa.) It might have some information in the Historic American Buildings Survey.
These are some questions that might determine if the building or the library institution has some historical context. That information is more relevant to the article than minutiae about the handicapped access ramp, the hours it's open, and the handicapped parking spots. Those details need to go.
If there's really no substantial information available about the library, then the text, after pruning, should be merged to the Smithville, Iowa article. The mention of other Smithville businesses and attractions could be merged if any of them are notable, such as being contributing properties to a historic district. If they're just non-notable local businesses, then those listings should be pruned. --Elkman(Elkspeak) 18:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Need more support, then delete. ---G.T.N. (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I would remove all unsourced information. First I may contact the author asking for print sources. If there are none, I would remove. But I probably wouldn't try to delete it since whether articles like that are kept have a lot to do with cliques; if there was small town library WikiProject, I'm sure it would pass AFD. --C S (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I would try to improve the article the best way I can. This would involve the other choice, "Contact the author of this article and ask for more information to include" but would not exclude other things. Deleting should never be considered the first choice unless the article is pure junk. If there are no reliable sources, I would consider its deletion. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 20:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Start with cleanup and wikification. Welcome the new author and invite them to help you improve the article; explain about sourcing and give some tips on writing articles. Look for sources especially in regards to notability; if nothing shows up off hand, ask for help from the area's Wikiproject. Shellbabelfish 17:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I have this goal that WP will actually improve knowledge beyond the bland guff which is on the net. Hence getting of one's prverbial and actually (gasp) use written material rather than just relying on google...Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Would try to help the author improve the article Kla22374 (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Not all information in the world is readily available online. I would contact the author and tell them it's likely the article will be deleted unless we cn show why the subject is notable and provide sourcing for that notability. There is also a bit of clean-up including some potentially negative information about people and some POV bias to be cleaned off. 71.139.36.216 (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
