Terpene

thcscience_admin
Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Museums and libraries. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Museums and libraries|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Museums and libraries. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Museums and libraries AfDs

[edit]

Central Illinois' On-Line Broadcast Museum

[edit]
Central Illinois' On-Line Broadcast Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

California Library Association

[edit]
California Library Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This phone book like entry does not belong on Wikipedia. WP:NOTAWEBHOST, WP:NCORP , WP:NOTADIRECTORY Graywalls (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - This is a stub that needs to be expanded. Please scroll to the page bottom and see the Library associations of the United States navbox. You will see this one listed along with all the other States. — Maile (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After having looked at what's in them, I feel quite a few of them fail to meet WP:NORG, nor would they quite quality as WP:NONPROFIT given they're individual local association. Kind of like local business alliances. Graywalls (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. The chapter connection to the American Library Association is minimal and insufficient reason to delete.
    This organization is independent serving the development of library services for nearly 40 million people.Kmccook (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kmccook How many people CLA serves is irrelevant; both the CLA bylaws and ALA website say that CLA is a chapter of ALA. Under WP:BRANCH, "the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Such sources are not in evidence Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So why do we have pages for sports teams that are part of a larger league?Kmccook (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this is a rhetorical question, but I'll WP:AGF: Sports teams are subject to WP:NSPORT and organizations are subject to WP:NORG. Different guidelines for different subjects. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I support @Kmccook in saying that the connection ALA is minimal. Membership is completely separate. Jennaf (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to American Library Association#National outreach, most likely, due to failure to meet WP:NORG. The California Library Association is a chapter of the American Library Association (see discussion of chapter status here), and that means WP:BRANCH applies here. The key policy: "As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." There's lots of news coverage with WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the California Library Association, but precious little WP:SIGCOV, and none that I can find in sources from outside California. To answer Maile's comment above, just because a user has created articles on every library association and put them into a navbox does not meet they are notable. Some may be, and some may not be. Redirecting to the parent org is a good AtD for those that don't pass WP:BRANCH. Moreover, the nomination does not meet any of the conditions for a WP:SPEEDYKEEP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Star Mississippi and Dclemens1971:, Do you know if CLA is a branch/chapter or otherwise fall under the umbrella of ALA? If it is, I support re-dir, but otherwise, del seems more appropriate. Graywalls (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not independent but for verifying the simple fact, it's listed as a chapter on ALA. In CLA's governance (PDF), it references liaising with ALA and "The ALA Chapter Councilor serves as a member of The Board, and represents The Association on the American Library Association Council," so I think we're good on the connection @Graywalls. Star Mississippi 23:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as noted above. Far from N:ORG pass and no grounds for a speedy keep whatsoever. Star Mississippi 01:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Improve - As someone who did the work on some of these state association articles, and who knows that CLA is one of the largest state library associations in the US, I'll see if I can find multiple, reliable non-local sources which report on it non-trivially. Jessamyn (my talk page) 21:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As this was an early and large association, there are sources, like this: "The War on Books and Ideas: The California Library Association and Anti-Communist Censorship in the 1940s and 1950s", possibly this "The California State Library School" (I can't get more than the first page but the G-Books snippet was about CLA). There's this: Schwartz, B. (1974). The Role of the American Library Association in the Selection of Archibald MacLeish as Librarian of Congress. The Journal of Library History (1974-1987), 9(3), 241-264. - which has a statement about the role of the CLA. I'm not sure about this next one; it's from UC Press, usually a reliable source, but it seems to be typewritten. It still may have some useful information. I'm sure there's more if we dig enough. Lamona (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first source is by Cindy Mediavilla, who “has served the California Library Association (CLA) in many roles, including assembly member-at-large, newsletter editor, conference planning chair, and CLA president,” and thus is not independent coverage. The fourth item appears to be a trivial mention. The second item, by Josephine Kunkle, does appear to be SIGCOV in a reliable, independent source outside California per WP:BRANCH. That’s one—let’s find multiple. Open to switching my !vote if more adequate sources can be found. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why the Mediavilla isn't "independent coverage". She wasn't involved with the organization during the time period she writes about ('40's and '50's), she wasn't working for the organization at the time she wrote, and it's in a peer-reviewed journal. By this logic, anyone who held a post in an organization in the past cannot be cited to present historical research about the organization. For people who serve in numerous government offices, that does not seem to be a viable policy, since they often write important pieces. Can Henry Kissinger not be cited re: US international policy? I don't think that's what is meant when we say sources must be independent. Lamona (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant policy is WP:ORGIND, which says "A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it." Someone as involved as Mediavilla cannot be described as "unrelated," and thus her writing about the organization cannot be considered independent. I would have no problem using her work to validate facts about the organization in the article, but the test of notability for organizations requires independence, so it wouldn't count for this particular conversation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying that we cannot consider Henry Kissinger an independent source for ... anything related to United States foreign policy, at any time in US history. I gotta say, I disagree. Her PEER-REVIEWED paper is both non-trivial and non-routine. Lamona (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say we can't consider Kissinger an independent source on US foreign policy. I also think Mediavilla can be an independent source on librarianship in general. What I would say is that we cannot consider Mediavilla an independent source on the California Library Association, just as Henry Kissinger would not be considered an independent source on Kissinger Associates. This is about WP:NORG, which is slightly different and more stringent than WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are not analogous. CLA was not created by her - she was an employee AT ONE POINT, but not when she wrote this article which was about a time that PRECEDED her involvement with the organization. So if anyone is ever employed by a company or organization we consider their writings about that company or organization AFTER THEY HAVE LEFT, even if they write about an aspect of the organization they were not involved with, to be non-independent? WP:ORGIND unfortunately does not clarify that among the relationships it lists all prior relationships with a company are included but I think we will run into absurdities if we reject sources from people who have had ANY kind of relation to the organization sometime in the past. Lamona (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This point is factually inaccurate; Mediavilla published the article in 1997, while she was close to the apex of a longtime career as a CLA volunteer leader (she was president in 2001). But I am more concerned by an apparent view that WP:ORGIND should be amended? If that's your argument, this is the wrong forum for that debate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm at my desk now and can access the Wikipedia Library. The Schwartz source has a single trivial mention: "The largest library groups opposing this nomination were the University of California Library School at Berkeley; the California Library Association (2,000) under the leadership of their President, Sydney B. Mitchell; Carnegie Institute of Technology as represented by President Robert E. Doherty; and the Library School of Carnegie Institute as represented by their Associate Director and Members of Faculty." No SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since we've had sources proposed in this discussion, I'm going to share a source table to evaluate them. So far, I see only one source that clears WP:ORGCRIT. Please feel free to add more; I'll change my !vote if we can find multiple sources that provide sigcov beyond California and that are secondary, independent and reliable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
No Presentation at CLA meeting by a CLA member Unpublished paper delivered at a CLA meeting Yes Yes
No Book published by CLA's parent association, the American Library Association Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes No Local news source; needs to be substantial coverage beyond California per WP:BRANCH Yes
No Official webpages of state government agency partnering with CLA on particular programs Yes Yes No Primary source
Yes No Master's degree thesis; per WP:DISSERTATION, "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Yes Yes
Yes Yes No A single WP:TRIVIALMENTION: "The largest library groups opposing this nomination were the University of California Library School at Berkeley; the California Library Association (2,000) under the leadership of their President, Sydney B. Mitchell; Carnegie Institute of Technology as represented by President Robert E. Doherty; and the Library School of Carnegie Institute as represented by their Associate Director and Members of Faculty." Yes
Yes Yes Yes Significant academic discussion (in a source outside California) of association involvement in starting California Library School Yes
No The author "has served the California Library Association (CLA) in many roles, including assembly member-at-large, newsletter editor, conference planning chair, and CLA president. She is a founding member of the CLA Library History Round Table (now Interest Group)" (see here) Yes Yes Yes
Yes No There is a single mention of the organization in this book. Yes
"California Library Association votes for nuclear arms freeze," Library Journal, February 15, 1984, p. 300 (reviewed via EBSCOHost/The Wikipedia Library)
 Under WP:TRADES, "there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability." Yes No This is a two-paragraph WP:ROUTINE summary of action taken at a CLA meeting. Yes
"California Library Association Passes Resolution Against Sexist Terminology," School Library Journal, January 1975, page 5.
 Under WP:TRADES, "there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability." Yes No This is single-paragraph WP:ROUTINE coverage of a resolution at a CLA meeting, plus a primary source reprint of the resolution text. Yes

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Additional sources: The California Library Association, 1895-1906; Years of Experimentation and Growth., "California Library Association passes resolution against sexist terminology" in: School Library Journal. Jan75, Vol. 21 Issue 5, p9. 1/5p., "California Library Association votes for nuclear arms freeze" in Library Journal. 2/15/1984, Vol. 109 Issue 3, p300. 1/9p. Also, HathiTrust has digital copies of the conferences starting in 1911 so those should provide additional information about the activities of the Association. I'll try to find some interesting bits in the early documents. Lamona (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, just noticed that the first one is already a source. I'll try for the others but I don't think they're available online. Lamona (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the added sources via The Wikipedia Library and added them to the assessment table above. Under WP:TRADES, the presumption is not to use trade magazines to establish notability for topics in the related industry, and neither source provides WP:SIGCOV in any case. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Museums and libraries Proposed Deletions

[edit]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Museums_and_libraries

Leave a Reply