Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Librarians Guild


 * 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. John254 16:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Progressive Librarians Guild

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:ORG due to lack of "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". While there are mentions in Google, Google News, and even Google Scholar, most are "trivial or incidental coverage", such as mentioning that the group showed up at a protest or identifying someone as being a member of the group. I have been unable to find independent sources that actually discuss the organization itself beyond a passing mention. They have a few chapters at library schools around the country, but I don't think this alone can satisfy WP:ORG without non-trivial coverage in independent sources. Sheep NotGoats  (Talk) 17:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I looked at the coverage and did not see the one profile of this organization that would make it easy to keep but the sheer quantity of mentions I saw make this a likely keep.. Additionally, there is more detailed coverage of this group in library-focused publications.  I would feel better if I had a sense of membership but I think this is a marginal keep that requres some additional work from someone with more familiarity |►  ϋrban яenewaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 05:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While I totally understand your point about the number of mentions (I felt the same way at first, that the number of mentions probably mean it is a given keep), I don't think we can in good conscience say the article satisfies WP:ORG just because there are probably some reliable sources out there; we need actual citations in hand that discuss the organization. (The Time magazine article you linked was just a passing mention). You say that there is detailed coverage in library-focused publications. Could you provide some citations? Sheep NotGoats   (Talk) 14:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. The sources are just sufficient; they are in some manner connected with an IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations) mailing list or caucus where most of the work takes place, but it's a closed list, as I remember--I think I used to belong. DGG (talk)
 * Which sources are you referring to? The only ones cited in the article are from the organization's website. Sheep NotGoats   (Talk) 14:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Looks to me from scanning the hits in google news like this is a pretty notable organization. Librarians aren't the most publicized people, but within the library world, this group appears to be a significant organization. Cbl62 (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I like this quote from the Michigan Daily describing the PLG: "Formed to fight library status quo, the idea of a progressive group of librarians doesn't exactly conjure up images of freedom-fighting activists. But, in the hearts and minds of publishers who rely on librarians and the libraries they stock for some $2 billion of annual revenue, socially minded librarians are a force to be reckoned with."  As the article notes, progressive book-toting librarians aren't going to get the same level of publicity as gun-toting freedom-fighters, but this appears to be a notable group.  Cbl62 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the PLG publishes the journal, Progressive Librarian, which has been published semi-annually since 1990. Cbl62 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2008 (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.