Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Library 2.0

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Textundblog (talk | contribs) at 13:49, 25 November 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Library 2.0

Library 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yet Another Web Neologism. From the article: The term "Library 2.0" was coined by Michael Casey on his blog. Says it all, really. A neologism coined by a blogger and used by bloggers, not notable Lurker oi! 16:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm unfamilar with this topic, but looking at the extensive references the term "Library 2.0" appears in the title of articles in both Library Journal and School Library Journal (among the other web or blog references) and appears to be a known academic concept, not a neoligism. I'd say this should be kept unless proof of a lack of notability could be shown, or other proof that this is some sort of odd fringe concept. Notability isn't based on where a term originates, but where it ends up. -Markeer 17:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, the term is used only in Library-related publications, and on the web. Lurker oi! 18:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean only the experts on libraries use the term? Then it must be useless, of course. – FYI, library science is an established field of research. Rl 18:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOR White papers and theses are original research. LittleOldMe 18:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be original research. That doesn't mean they can't cite original research - on the contrary, that is what we are supposed to do! Uppland 22:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I never liked "Web 2.0" and "Library 2.0" is even worse. However, the term has quite a bit of traction in publications already, and I won't support the deletion of an article just because I find its name silly, the concept fuzzy, or its origin too bloggy. We should have a decent article about this. Rl 18:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This looks like a well-referenced article demonstrating that the term is in use among library professionals. If there are any actual problems with the article, the nominator has not explained what they are. Uppland 22:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the entire 2.0 fad as non-notable neologism riding on the coattails of Web 2.0. adding ~ism on the end of each noun or person's name is bad enough. Nuke the lot. Ohconfucius 07:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This entry should be kept as it has garnered so much attention, not only in the library community. Students are writing papers on it, library schools are dedicating full semester classes to it, entire conferences are built around it, and the theories are well grounded. It's very real, the subject of much discussion, and should stay in Wikipedia. Steven M. Cohen - 16:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This entry should be kept! The term has been used for over a year in the library community. It has been morphing into a description of new ways to think in the library community - different ways of putting the customer first, new ways of serving a library's community, and new ways to even think about librarians and training. Also - if this term is removed, I'd say that Office 2.0, another wikipedia entry, should be removed too - since they're both offshoots of the term web 2.0. David Lee King(UTC)
  • Keep While "Library 2.0" began as a bloggy term, its recent popularity in the field of Library Science has helped clarify its meaning and now has an academic "life of its own." This is an incredibly useful concept for those trying to communicate the changes in library technology. Is the name silly? Sure, but so is the Klingon language. Is the concept fuzzy? A little, but Wittgenstein made part of his career clarifying concepts such as "family resemblance" and this is no different. It's origin may be bloggy, but how is this different from the origin of many words from other technologies? It's not just a bloggy term anymore. I don't think the "origin police" should go after concepts solely because of a less-than-high-falutin origin.
  • Keep - After a year of discourse via the Biblioblogosphere, the term has found its way into library-related professisonal journals http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html, into library school courses and workshops/symposia/conferences. Also, Casey & Savistinuk's book "Library 2.0" will be published in early 2007 by Information Today, thus making the wikipedia entry a useful resource for readers looking to find out more and trace the term's history.*
  • Keep I find it bizarre that "Library 2.0" is up for deletion, the wikipedia's criteria of 'reliable sources' seems to be established. Surely discussions on the merit of the concept should be within the article not cause the deletion of the article!(Surely there is no need to address Lurker's comments on "only in Library-related publications" ...)*
  • KEEP - If professional librarians are discussing and addressing this in their professional literature (and they definitely are!) then why would wikipedia feel it needs to be deleted. Are not librarians the best ones to decide what is worth discussing wrt library terms?24.36.176.71 02:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why would "Library 2.0" be deleted if "Office 2.0" or even "Web 2.0" aren't? Isn't "Web 2.0" just as much of a neologism as "Library 2.0"? And why would a neologism be deleted anyway, especially if it's being used professionally with quite a bit of frequency? Joshua M. Neff
  • Keep - I hate the term. But the very fact that there is a debate around the issue means that that debate should be vocalized. The article should spell out completely the criticisms of the term and let the reader decide Schabot 16:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I wrote probably the most widely-read discussion of the term (and the thing), cited in the links, and I may be identified (wrongly) as a leading opponent. While I may not be enthusiastic about the term as it's sometimes used, it's absolutely prominent, not only on blogs but within librarianship/library science in general. If this isn't noteworthy enough for Wikipedia, there must be at least a quarter-million better candidates for deletion. (Walt Crawford)
  • Keep The term has been cited and described in professional print media [1], [2] [3] which meets the standards of notability for a neologism. Jessamyn (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
other commenters, please sign your posts with four tildes which will add your username and time/datestamp to your contributions. ~~~~ Jessamyn (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable. While it could be seen as 'original research', it should be seen as an attempt to evolve existing libraries. Thus, it is NOT new but a use of new technology in the same context. Given that context, the Wikipedia falls into the same category - an 'unproven' technology which is based on the evolution of pre-existing technologies. By this logic, those who are calling for this article to be deleted might just want to save us all a lot of trouble and flag the Wikipedia itself for deletion. --TaranRampersad 17:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I support the other arguments that have been made to keep this entry. Information professionals are currently discussing how Web 2.0 will apply specifically to libraries, for example: how to add tagging to catalogues. We use the term Library 2.0 to apply to Web 2.0 concepts that apply specifically to library issues. Many of our colleagues who are thus far unfamiliar with the term may be referring to Wikipedia to find out what it means. Connie Crosby 17:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just wrote my Master's Paper on this topic and would like to see the article remain a part of Wikipedia. --Michael Habib 19:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -The topic, although named poorly, is an important current trend among libraries around the world. -Annonymous
  • Keep - This topic is in big discussions, in blogs, journals and in libraries themselves, even here in Australia. It is important to libraries and library staff that information like that provided by Wikipedia, continues to be freely and easily available.
  • Keep -814,000 hits from a search of Google, including many of the significant print and online publications in the information sciences? Not everyone agrees with it, for sure, but the term is acting as a valuable focus in thinking about the ways in which library services evolve. -Paul Miller 24 November 2006
  • Keep - Although the term Library 2.0 may not be ideal, what is behind it is an important movement. Sarah Houghton has defined L2 as "…making your library’s space (virtual and physical) more interactive, collaborative, and driven by community needs…The basic drive is to get people back into the library by making the library relevant to what they want and need in their daily lives…to make the library a destination and not an afterthought." Because of its importance to the library community, I believe that this entry on Library 2.0 (L2) should remain in Wikipedia. - Jill Hurst-Wahl, Nov. 24, 2006.
  • Keep - Here are 7 published articles, 4 of them in peer-reviewed Library Studies journals, that have the term in their titles:
    • Albanese, Andrew R. 2004. Campus library 2.0. Library Journal 129, no. 7 (15 Apr) : 30-33. Database on-line. Available from CSA, LISA: Library and Information Science Abstracts.
    • Casey, Michael E., Laura C. Savastinuk. 2006. Library 2.0. Library Journal, vol.131, no.14, pp.40-42 : Se 2006. Database on-line. Available from CSA, LISA: Library and Information Science Abstracts.
    • Chad, Ken. 2005. Library 2.0. Public Library Journal 20, no. 4 (winter) : 11-12. Database on-line. Available from CSA, LISA: Library and Information Science Abstracts.
    • Chowdhury, Gobinda, Alan Poulter, and David McMenemy. 2006. Public Library 2.0: Towards a new mission for public libraries as a "network of community knowledge". Online Information Review, vol.30, no.4, pp.454-460 30, no. 4: 454-460. Database on-line. Available from CSA, LISA: Library and Information Science Abstracts.
    • Harris, Christopher. 2006. School library 2.0. School Library Journal, pp.50-53 (May) : 50-53. Database on-line. Available from CSA, LISA: Library and Information Science Abstracts.
    • Miller, Paul. 2006. Coming together around Library 2.0. A focus for discussion and a call to arms. D-Lib Magazine, vol.12, no.4 12, no. 4 (April) Database on-line. Available from CSA, LISA: Library and Information Science Abstracts.
    • Notess, Greg R. 2006. The terrible twos: Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and more. Online, vol.30, no.3, pp.40-42 30, no. 3 (June) : 40-42. Database on-line. Available from CSA, LISA: Library and Information Science Abstracts. - Michael Lines129.128.108.46 22:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The citations above provide evidence the term is well established and evident in professional library science literature. Reynolds Erica 23:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per user Schabot's argument, and the fact that the term is appearing in professional literature, conference proceedings and job vacancies within the library profession. Simon Chamberlain 203.97.110.163 23:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There is also a discussion in German about "Library 2.0" http://log.netbib.de/tag/bibliothek20 --Historiograf 02:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The term defines a new way of viewing libraries. It might not make much sense to the average user, but for library staff it helpfull in understanding libraries today.
  • Comment Hmm, that's a lot of entries by anonymous and unreigistered users. Lurker oi! 11:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep An Argument for keeping this article: there are many people who tag their bookmarks with library2.0 at del.icio.us User:Textundblog 13:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The comments are by your users, many of them professional librarians. If a topic that is discussed in papers, journals, books, and at conferences is not worthy of a Wikipedia entry then what is? Base your decision upon the evidence presented. Michael Casey 13:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Library_2.0&oldid=90019939"