Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet search engines and 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet search engines and libraries

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

While a very nice essay, this violates WP:NOTESSAY. It appears to have been a school project, and the editors have never returned, and little other improvements made to make it encyclopedic. Westbender (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Racepacket (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a personal essay. JIP | Talk 06:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per...well, nothing else really needs to be said. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a lot else has to be said, actually. I, for one, would like an explanation of what, exactly, is essay-like about this. There's no personal reflection. In fact, there appear to be no first-person or even second-person remarks in the entire article. It appears to be an encyclopaedia article on a subject that would be Libraries, effect of World Wide Web search engines upon in a paper encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely. The tone is a little off our usual style, but it's not a personal reflection. Vaguewaving at WP:NOTESSAY does not make a valid nomination. Fences&Windows 20:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An encyclopedic topic that clearly meets notability guidelines and is referenced. If there are any problems with style or sufficiency of references, they can be addressed by editing. ^Bongo_matic 14:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong Keep and rewrite. Unquestionably notable topic -- there are about two dozen books on the topic. But the article itself is not really written in our usual style--the "essay-like" charge reflects its style as a college paper, not any major inherent deffects, such as being written to express a personal viewpoint. That last , an paper expounding a subject and coming to a conclusion or expressing a viewpoint, is what we normally mean by essay-like. This style misjudgment is only to be expected, since the article was prepared as a course project.

It is extremely appropriate to encourage these projects to do it right. It is extremely detrimental to the development of Wikipedia for us to delete the articles--such projects are one of our main areas of growth for the coverage of major topics. I'm going to declare some degree of COI here--I have been involved in discussions with the people involved the relevant Wikipedia and WMF projects about myself organizing and leading such projects. But I have not yet actually done any, though I have volunteered for some. I'm not writing to represent the view of those projects, for there are some significant ways in which I do not like the WMF approach. (This particular article is not part of any such formal project; it would have been written more appropriately if any knowledgable Wikipedian has been there to give advice. I will personally make myself responsible for helping them improve it, and, if they should not cooperate, I shall personally rewrite it.)

I see the nominator has made no effort to help them, which truly puzzles me, because his contributions shows some interest in libraries.Perhaps had he been here longer than 4 weeks, he might have known the lengths we will go to in helping people learn to work here, and realized the existence of the policy WP:BEFORE, that deletion is the last resort if nothing better can be done. If we start deleting relatively poorly written articles on the grounds of their low quality alone, we'll remove half of Wikipedia--myself I think half of Wikipedia is indeed less than satisfactory, but what it needs is people working on their improvement. Nominating such articles for deletion is not constructive work. Nominating the efforts of class articles for deletion, instead of guiding the class, is one of the most effective ways to prevent Wikipedia from growing, and will lead to its eventual destruction. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But what in this article isn't already covered in Web search engine? Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, how about all the stuff about how search engines affect libraries, i.e. the whole article. Did you actually read these two articles? Fences&Windows 20:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then there should be a sentence or two about how libraries are impacted, with sources to the primary source that makes the argument. This article is making the argument, which appears to be original synthesis of source material...an essay. Westbender (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How internet search engines are used by and affect libraries is a notable topic, there's a lot of reliable sources covering this specific issue and many of them are cited already. If it reads like an essay, that can be fixed by editing. Fences&Windows 20:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps a retitling will make this more acceptable. It's really about the Impact of Internet search engines on libraries. Abductive (reasoning) 21:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I in fact suggested that to them back some time ago. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Title must be changed in order to keep. Tone needs editing - the fact that this reads like an essay affects its neutrality. Needs work but offers a lot of well-referenced information worthy of a place on Wikipedia. Kirstinhepburn (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, Abductive and Kirstinhepburn. Peridon (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2010 (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.