Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future of libraries

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 Trends in library usage. I'd like to note to the creator that if he would like to do something with the essay, there are alternative venues where the essay form is appropriate. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Future of libraries

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A well written and interesting essay, this is not an encyclopaedia article. It is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH Fiddle Faddle 20:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. True, it is an essay. I think some of it is salvageable but needs to be moved to the relevant articles: Library, Public library, Digital library, etc.Deb (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the scope of Wikipedia; ~~delete~~. Possibly transwiki to some other project? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to Redirect to Trends in library usage. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever can be saved to Trends in library usage. I note that that article, as Decline of library usage, was kept at AfD but then moved over and greatly improved by the author of this page (User:Libraryowl). Ansh6 6 6 21:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any reasonably sourced info to Trends in library usage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the author of this article. I agree it could use a good deal of work & expansion, but the topic is notable. The future of libraries is subject of both public debate and significant scholarship. Where the various sub-topics are speculative, that speculation is drawn directly from credible and recent academic and major media sources (clarification: by "drawn directly," I don't mean that I drew the conclusion, I mean the sources did). Most of the information includes details about things large research and urban libraries are doing now in order to modernize. We have a fairly long and detailed article on the history of libraries* which is also a "synthesis" of sources. If the problem is a title, framing or style issue, that can be fixed with editing. I am a v. new Wikipedian and am not completely familiar with WP house style. I encourage more experienced editors to work on this article to bring it up to quality standards. *If there is a delete consensus, I would support a merge of some of this information into the "History of libraries" article or the "Trends/decline" article, which I did significant work on.--Libraryowl (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC) After some further thought & research on the rules and norms, I am changing my position to a solid support merge or delete. I think that I jumped the gun a little on this one & didn't really understand the WP:SYNTH rule. The better material here can be split up between several articles, e.g. trends in library usage, public libraries, bookless libraries, learning commons, etc. I don't know if there is a procedure to bring this discussion to a quick close, but I hope other participants will support a merge consensus as well.--Libraryowl (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that I can request deletion under WP:CSD#G7 and the article meets the qualifications for WP:speedy deletion. If there is an administrator that can do it, I have no problem. Thanks for your comments, WP. Libraryowl (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don't speedy delete it. This is a useful redirect, and we'd need the content to merge anyways. Deleting gets rid of all that. Ansh6 6 6 06:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some (but not all) of the information and citations here are already in Trends in library usage. ~~I still think there's a case for "keep,"~~ but if I'm not wiki-ing correctly I would appreciate some guidance & tutoring from the community on my talk page. While I started off with an RFD, I have really enjoyed participating in WP and want to contribute in a positive & helpful way.Libraryowl (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Considering the cited work done here I think it would be a waste for an outright deletion even if it is presented in the style of an essay and all that wonderful wikipedia agreed upon standard policy jazz. I support this article, I think it is well deserved in taking up the kilobytes of space on the servers at Wikimedia, but in the spirit of following our standards as a community it really should be salvaged into pieces of information for other articles to be further improved, saving the work of making this singular article into something high grade compared to minor work in improving others which are already well established. Correct me if I am wrong. Judicatus | Talk 22:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per merge suggestions above. The section titled "The future of books" looks suitable for inclusion in History of books or Bookselling. —rybec 04:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support selective merge as nominator I am happy to support a selective merge of the various elements into relevant articles. Fiddle Faddle 07:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Trends in library usage. There is some solid, sourced material that can be extracted from this page that would enhance the proposed target. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK to start moving things to different pages? I don't know if it's appropriate to clear the page and create a redirect until this discussion has come to a close. Libraryowl (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly going to be closed as a selective 'merge' but, because we have an outstanding delete !vote, I think that an early non-admin close might be frowned upon. Therefore don't redirect at this stage. However, because you wrote the original content you are able to merge it, whatever the outcome and prior to any redirect, without any GFDL attribution issues. This is a case for pragmatism so, with regard to merging some sourced content, go for it I say! The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, that delete !vote is actually a merge !vote in disguise. Ansh6 6 6 21:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love your edit summary! :-) The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ansh6 6 6 22:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I started work on merging. There is a pretty thorough summary of what I moved & where it went on the article's talk page. In case it's unclear, I also support an eventual redirect of this page to Trends in library usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libraryowl (talk • contribs) 23:04, 2 August 2013 (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.