Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Burt (former librarian and activist)


 * 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 no consensus to delete W.marsh 02:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

David Burt (former librarian and activist)


Notability. If the article is kept it'll need cleanup, too. – Gurch 21:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not sure how this all works, but I wrote this submission for a class I am taking in library science and our professor is requiring us to post our papers. If it is a matter of format, please let me know how I am supposed to do it and I can fix it. If it's a matter of content, please let me know what I can do to change it to fit your guidelines. This is the first time I have put anything up here, and I have no idea what I'm doing.


 * No worries, if you need to keep it up for a while, you can put it on your user page. To create your user page, click the red thing in the top right of your screen that has your username on it. Then just copy and paste the article there. GhostPirate 22:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S., sign your comments on pages like this by typing ~ after your comment. GhostPirate 22:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Read What Wikipedia is not as well, specifically the parts that say Wikipedia is not a web host or indiscriminate collection of information. You may want to explain to your professor that this isn't quite the purpose of Wikipedia. Does he not accept papers printed out on, erm, paper? – Gurch 04:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm the professor in this case -- and not a he -- and am operating with the understanding of wikipedia as an encyclopedia, "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge," as it says in the Encyclopedia entry. The branch of knowledge we are contributing information on is libraries. The entry on David Burt is one of about 20 that my students are each creating or contributing to as part of learning how to be librarians.  Each entry is about someone who has influenced or is influencing the direction or the development of libraries.  Along the way it's very important for librarians to understand Wikipedia, how to use it and how to contribute to it.  The process is in fact also creating Wikipedians. If its a matter of voting, Keep. And if there is any issue with this approach to contributing to Wikipedia, I'm interested in hearing the argument/making any adjustments/learning.  katewill 03:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Suggestion from another librarian: show them how to give arguments for and against the positions taken by controversial figures, using good WP articles as examples. DGG 02:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Article is messy and mistitled, but it seems to be a notable part of a national controversy. Website dedicated to David Also, David Burt was quoted in the NYTimes. I say Move to David Burt (activist) ---J.S  (T/C) 23:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Needs cleanup, but I remember the flap a few years back about library Internet access and whether or not it should be filtered or censored. David Burt was pretty involved in that, as the article shows, and reliable independent secondary sources have been provided.  Might not pass the 100-year test, but I think the controversy is sufficiently notable, and he's sufficiently involved, to pass for now. Shimeru 06:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep but change title as per J.smith., or alternatively (librarian). "former" is POV. Much as I regret it, I do have to admit he is notable within his profession, though in a direction I deplore. And he is now a public figure. There is however plenty of documentation of his views, and the arguments to which they have given rise. DGG 02:14, 5 December 2006 (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.