Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SALIN


 * 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   Delete. Mfield (Oi!) 01:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

SALIN

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

no assertion of notability; fails WP:ORG Ironholds (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GROUP and WP:WEB. WWGB (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:WEB does not apply as it is an organization. It is notable as collection of librarians. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * An "informal, unaffiliated" network of libraries. It has to pass WP:ORG, then, as the initial nom statement said. Ironholds (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * KeepWP:ORG Though SALIN is coordinated by an informal organisation it is a very real and well-organised network (hence precedence of the word "Network" in SALIN's name. Given the influence that this network has on the shape of the South Australian Library scene I would have thought it deserved inclusion. SALIN has a great and very real influence and importance to the hundreds of members with which it is affiliated. LIBRARIAN 2nd June 2009
 * IP vote indented. Ironholds (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - a Google search of 'SALIN' returns almost no hits about this organisation: Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- In reply to Nick-D; A search of the Australian Library and Information Association www.alia.org.au web-page reveals more than 50 hits for SALIN. Google is not an Authority on Library organisations. ALIA is. There is more to the net (and life) than what Google can find. LIBRARIAN 2nd June 2009
 * IP vote indented. Ironholds (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a well known organisation within the South Australian Library community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.237.233 (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * IP vote indented. Ironholds (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment to all keep votes; if you are invoking WP:ORG you must show how SALIN passes it. Simply saying "it passes WP:ORG because it is important" does not work. Ironholds (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * KeepWP:ORG It is referenced numerous times on the ALIA website, the peak body for Australian Librarians. It is discussed in an article published in a peer reviewed journal. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=70053C38FC1D7BD36404952E763E21FF?contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkpdf&contentId=1751929 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.146.82 (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The journal article is discussing LIS generally - SALIN is mentioned, but hardly the topic of the article. Ironholds (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I am somewhat conflicted on this one. I think it comes own on the side of failing the criteria and frankly the text of the article doesn't really argue for its notability either (Informal?) -- Narson ~  Talk  • 11:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm sorry I don't really understand how you can say that, the article is about professional development of South Australian Librarians and uses information gathered from using the SALIN list because it is a notable South Australian library organisation. The journal was published in a peer reviewed journal. It was selected over ALIA (Australian Library and Information Association) because of the large number of subscribers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.146.82 (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * IP vote indented. Ironholds (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep SALIN hosted the Adelaide premiere of 'The Hollywood Librarian' with sponsorship from ALS (a Library vendor). A report was published in ALS Newsline http://www.alslib.com.au/documents/newsline-summer-08.pdf
 * IP vote indented. Ironholds (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Discussed in article by SALIN cofounder 'Building New Generation Networks in Australia: a Personal Experience' in LIScareer.com - The Library & Information Science Professional's Career Development Center. http://www.liscareer.com/sinclair_salin.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.237.233 (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * IP vote indented. Ironholds (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep SALIN is mentioned in the January-June 2003 ALIA SA Library Technician's group as one of the biggest reasons for the demise of the popularity of the group. "Another factor influencing our low attendance numbers is the establishment of a new library group operating in South Australia called SALIN (South Australian Library Information Network) This group is not ALIA based but has a majority of ALIA members on their committee and at their functions. They hold extremely interesting and well attended functions and there is no charge other than a coin donation to cover snacks and a speaker gift. Unlike ALIA there is no cost to join SALIN." Found here http://www.alia.org.au/groups/libtsa/reports/2003.01-06.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.237.233 (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The Australian Library and Information Association (the professional peak body for Australian Librarian's) lists SALIN on their Australian library and related organisations, http://www.alia.org.au/links/organisations.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.237.233 (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There is something dodgy going on here, with all these chaps coming on from, what, two IPs? I suspect there is some off wiki canvassing going on here. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 12:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Insignificant organization, and minor mentions like that do not add up to notability. That an group is listed among related or allied groups by a national notable organization does not make the group notable. That it competes with a subchapter of a national group does not help either--far from it, it shows the local and non-notable status--especially given the utterly trivial nature of what is  said about it--groups that finance themselves from snack sales at meetings are not likely to be notable.  That its cofounder talk about it in an article he wrote is the definition of non-independent source, and the reason why we have that rule.  But this is all as expected, state level professional organizations almost always are non-notable. My colleagues above have a good deal to learn about WP standards. DGG (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep To DGG:  According to Wiki's own guidelines, "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." "  SALIN IS a significant organisation for South Australian LIS for what it DOES, not how much money it makes (BTW, what is YOUR definition of a "not for profit" organisation?!).  It does not 'compete' with the subchapter of the national group, but rather supports it.  Many of the SALIN committee members have used SALIN as a launching pad to serve on committees of that national group. Many of the SALIN members have taken out membership of that national group - this hardly supports your claim of competition.  Now, as for what SALIN does: it supports new entrants to the LIS field by offering a supportive environment in which they can learn how to complete job applications in the LIS field; ofers networking opportunities in a non-threatening environment and other professionl development opportunities.  It might not be rocket science, but it is an important stepping stone for many people who are new to LIS in South Australia, giving them confidence in their abilities and knowledge prior to making the move to serve on ALIA committees (our national group).  Many notable South Australian librarians and information professionals have come through the ranks of SALIN - attending events first of all, and then serving on the committee.  Ask any Librarian or Information professional in South Australia if they have heard of SALIN and I am sure you will get a positive response.  That's not what I would regard as "not notable."    Minnametsa (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — Minnametsa (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment to Narson Did you consider that perhaps many of the members and supporters of SALIN work at the same institution, which just happens to be one of the biggest libraries in the state?? This would account for the same IP addresses, and further gives weight to the significance of this organisation in SA.  These people are busy professionals who hardly have the time (or the inclination, need etc.) to canvass support for an organisation that they already believe in just because some small-time wikipedia editor decides to flex his/her muscles. Minnametsa (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — Minnametsa (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Read WP:MEATPUPPET. Canvassing seems to be exactly what they're doing. I'm going to emphasise again: Organisations like this must pass the notability guidelines at WP:ORG. No matter how many times you spout "ask your nearest librarian, he'll know what it is! See? It's notable!" it means squat if the subject matter fails WP:ORG. Ironholds (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've just struck out the duplicate keep votes from an IP address (I don't believe that IP's votes generally count in AfDs anyway) and tagged User:Minnametsa as a SPA. I agree with Narson's comment about something dodgy going on here, though I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a single editor (hence the same IP being used alongside a SPA). Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as not meeting notability and sourcing requirements for an encyclopedic article. 'Notable' on Wikipedia is not a synonym for 'well-known'; the sources given do not establish notability per "significant coverage in reliable independent sources". EyeSerene talk 13:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:ORG. One hit in Google News, and that looks like a press release. It's a nice little club for librarians in Australia that has occasional library tours and dinners. That's not notable. --John Nagle (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see any evidence that this topic has been covered significantly in independent sources. --Leivick (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. In one of the article's references, SALIN is mentioned but is not the focus of the study .  Another reference  was co-authored by a SALIN founder (or cofounder) and therefore is not an independent source. –Megaboz (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * delete There does not appear to be much in the way of independent, reliable sources so fails WP:V. I'd be willing to change my position if more sources were given. But right now, I'm not seeing it. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2009 (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.