Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public library ratings
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Public library ratings
I believe this article uses Wikipedia as an advertising venue for the "HAPLR Index," which the self-described author of the article markets to public libraries. In hopes of adding some balanced content to the piece, I entered the "criticism" section and the bibliography that follows the article. Before my addition, there was nothing in the article that did anything other than promote Mr. Hennen's product. He cites other nations' ratings systems, true, but always within the context of the HAPLR index. So, even with my addition, the article seems too promotional to be included.--Cameron A. Johnson, reference librarian, Everett, WA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camjoe (talk • contribs) 2007/09/08 18:53:13
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup I think a decent article on this should be possible, and a Google news search shows that the index is taken seriously enough to make mainstream news. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep when edited for balance. Hennan's rating do deserve a mention--they are featured each year in American Libraries published by the ALA, giving them a certain respectability. (They are also referred to in a number of WP articles on public libraries, and might in fact serve a a rough screen) They are not just opinion, but at least bases on a analysis of various factors--the weighting and so forth are of course subjective, but they aren't really any worse than most ratings in other fields.
- As for balance, I have just re-edited it rather drastically--possibly over-drastically. Maybe the Hennan ratings deserve a little more emphasis than i gave them. I did leave in a 1 sentence bio of Henning, however. DGG (talk) 08:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously important topic; the improvements look good. I've suggested a new name on the talk page. John Vandenberg 13:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
