Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massachusetts Library Association

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Library Association

non notable association whose article is merely a link farm B1atv 07:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - professional organisation founded in 1890. If this organisation is "non-notable" on grounds that it's "local", presumably every US state-based organisation is similarly non-notable. This AfD follows directly from a discussion about deleting a red link to "Texas Library Association" from the disambiguation page at TLA: it was suggested that the existence of the MLA's long-established page demonstrated that state library associations were accepted as suitable for WP articles, so that the redlink was appropriate. "Link farm"? Well, that's defined as "On the World Wide Web, a link farm is any group of web sites that all hyperlink to every other page in the group.". This is a stub article which includes links to a dozen subgroups, committees, etc of the organisation which is the subject of the article, and to a group of affiliated organisations. PamD 19:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - but there are no SOURCES which even suggest at notability - that's the grounds on which it is not notable; and if the organisation is not notable (as shown by its lack of sources, then its committees are equally not notable. B1atv 21:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has existed since Oct 2005. It has never been given a {{notability}} tag, to allow those concerned with it to take action to prevent its deletion. It should not be deleted in five days on the request of one individual. PamD 08:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regional branch of a larger organisation with no claims to notability in its own right. Nuttah68 20:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Certainly the library association of the most scholastically academic section of the country (and arguably the world) is notable. The government sources, which are reliable, confirm the content. --Oakshade 19:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "the most scholastically academic section of the country (and arguably the world)" - where do you get that from? It's not in the article and represents a pov or original research. Where are the independent reliable sources to support this claim. The article is about a regional support group for libraries and librarians which asserts nothing of note B1atv 09:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am currently working with the archivist at the organization to flesh out the article. Many of the materials involved are in non-digital format in the Boston Public Library archives, and many more are being compiled from different sources. I agree with PamD and Oakshade on all points, especially PamD's point that the notability tag was not added to allow action to be taken before deletion proceedings commenced. While it started with many links, it was not meant to remain that way, and work is being done to rectify that now. Andrea Mercado 19:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "working with the archivist at the organization " - This raises the potential for serious issues of conflict of interest and neutrality. Of course a professional working within an organisation is bound to be in a position to know more about the organisation than those outside, but if the only sources are those within the organisation then I doubt they meet the requirements to be reliable and independent. As for not being tagged - nowhere in the deletion procedures does it state that this is necessary. The article has been around for two years and at no time during those two years has anybody produced any sources to support the claim that this association is notable. I don't doubt it exists, I doubt if it is notable. B1atv 09:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Improve The state library associations are not really branches of the national (ALA) in the same way as other professional associations. Each has pretty autonomous jurisdiction in their own states along with individual goals and policies. MLA is the association of record in dealing with library issues in the state of Massachusetts and this article shoudl be improved with citations and history to show that. Jessamyn (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "MLA is the association of record in dealing with library issues in the state of Massachusetts and this article shoudl be improved with citations and history to show that." - Citations are needed to do more than this, they need to show that the association is notable. Nobody, even in this debate, has offered any suggestion, yet alone evidence, that the association is notable. B1atv 09:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I look favorably upon articles about my own profession, but I do not think state associations of almost any profession are really notable as a general rule. (I make an exception for bar associations, in the US, because of the state-centered specificity of the practice of law and the political role). I don't see what this association has done to make it notable. if its published an notable instrument, the notability would rather belong to the authors of the spreadsheet. Otherwise, it has the usual committees, and it publishes, as usual, a newsletter. No indication about importance of either. The most striking thing here is that the gavel 'is said to be' from the wood of the USS Constitution. What is notable about librarianship: notable librarians, important libraries, professional journals, major classic works, library schools, and national associations and conventions. The State Library of Massachusetts -now that would probably be worth an article, but not the Mass. Library Association. DGG (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see why this would be deleted, per arguments by jessamyn and WP:NOT#PAPER. This is a real organization, notability isn't a real criteria for deletion. This article could be useful to readers. - cohesion 19:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "notability isn't a real criteria for deletion"Are you kidding? The policy at WP:NOT#PAPER states: "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars" I refer you to the first of those five pillars which clearly states that notability is a must. B1atv 19:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in WP:5P says notability is a must. Our core content policies are WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. This is a neutral, verifiable article, that is not original research, and is very likely useful to people. I'm not using WP:NOT#PAPER as a "free pass" to inclusion, I'm using it as an example of why a neutral, verifiable, useful article shouldn't be deleted because some people think it's not notable enough. Regardless, as jessamyn points out below they are pretty notable as well. - cohesion 18:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The MLA as an association publishes standards for library services to children and young adults in the state of Massachusetts. Their intellectual freedom committee was also involved in an interesting lawsuit where they testified before the Obscene Literature Control Commission regarding the supression of Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer. They are arguably (and citeably) involved and a driving force in the intellectual freedom and freedom to read movements in the state of Massachusetts and have been for over 100 years. I have added their publications and more citations from outside MLA to the existing article. Jessamyn (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2007 (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.