Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Library Corporation (TLC)


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The Library Corporation (TLC)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Advertising. The wording in the article is promotional, and the article uses exclusively and extensively uses the companies own branding for the products (e.g. "Library&bull;Solution"). The creator of the article,, has had problems with promotional contributions before, and in fact all of their edits appear to be related to "The Library Corporation".

Of the refs supplied, only maybe 2 or 3 actually verify notability. The rest are: self published, "submitted by", PR/awards, and stories noting that a library uses their products. OSbornarfcontribs. 04:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator admits that two or three of the references verify notability.  If the topic is notable, then the solution to a promotional tone is to edit the article to reflect a neutral point of view, not to delete an article about a notable topic.  We are here to improve an encyclopedia, not to reduce it or to delete legitimate encyclopedic content.  Cullen328 (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If kept, the article needs to be renamed to The Library Corporation.Curb Chain (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with doing that once the discussion concludes. Thank you.  Jessdfacts (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Thank you for reviewing my page and offering opinions. As the article's creator, there are a few points I would like to add to the discussion.  I am new to Wikipedia, so please forgive me if this response should have been posted elsewhere.


 * I wrote this article because I support the mission of libraries. Today's libraries cannot function without automation systems, which are the modern-day equivalent of Dewey Decimal System card catalogs.  The Library Corporation (TLC) is a leading provider of library automation systems, serving more than 700 library systems and thousands of branches worldwide.  An objective overview of the company's operations, as well as the operations of its competitors, can be found in the magazine article | Automation Marketplace 2011: The New Frontier, which was published April 1, 2011, in Library Journal magazine.  A link to that article is provided on the TLC Wikipedia page.


 * I worked diligently to ensure that this article is not promotional, but rather an overview of TLC and its automation products. In my opinion, the article does not include marketing language to promote the company or its products.  To bolster my claim, it is important to note what is NOT included in my article.  If you visit TLC's | Web site, you will find numerous products and services that are secondary to the company's primary role as an automation system provider.  Of particular note is the company's claim of offering | "an unwavering commitment to customer service and support."  This claim permeates all of the marketing materials on the company's Web site, but I considered it to be too subjective for inclusion in a non-biased encyclopedic article.


 * I did retain some of the company's branding (i.e. "Library&bull;Solution"), but only because those brands are registered trademarks. I did not include branding on non-trademarked products.


 * The references provided in the article are valid and cite coverage by several national publications: | Library Journal, | School Library Journal, | Scholastic Administrator, | American Libraries, and the online-only | Library Technology Guides. These are prestigious media outlets, but library automation is not a "sexy" industry that warrants extensive media coverage, which is why there are additional references to articles about libraries that use TLC software.  The simple fact is, the majority of media coverage about library automation providers (Sirsi Corporation, OCLC, Follett Corporation, etc.) is limited to reports about libraries that use their products.  Additionally, some media outlets that cover the library automation industry do not have an online presence (i.e. Advanced Technology Libraries, a national publication based in Millwood, N.Y.), or have Web sites that require a paid subscription to access archived articles.  Please note that I did not provide any links to TLC-related articles on Web sites such as | Newswire Today and | Press Release Point because these are public-relation outlets, not objective reporting firms.  Also note that I am unaware of any "submitted by" or PR references in the TLC article, but I did cite two references to awards.  The | Movers and Shakers and | Best in Tech 2009 awards are highly coveted national honors that, in the library automation industry, are on par with an Oscar or Pulitzer, which is why I felt justified in including those references in the TLC article.


 * Finally, I would like to address OSborn's point about my previous "problems with promotional contributions." This is true but somewhat misleading because those problems were encountered before The Library Corporation (TLC) page was published.  This is the first Wikipedia page that I have created, and there was a steep learning curve.  I made several mistakes during the article's creation, all of which I rectified.  By the time I was ready to share my article with the public, I requested feedback and received only one comment (I was asked to do a better job organizing the external links, which I did).  The article was published more than a week ago and, until it was nominated for speedy deletion, did not garner any negative comments.  For the purposes of this discussion, allow me to share the article's ratings as of June 3, 2011: Trustworthy, 4.0; Objective, 3.5; Complete, 4.0; Well-written, 4.0.


 * Thank you for considering these points as you consider the page's deletion nomination. If you have questions or would like to contact me outside of this forum, please do so at User talk:Jessdfacts. Jessdfacts (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions.  —  Baseball   Watcher  17:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets the general notability guideline. I do not believe the style of this article is promotional enough for it to warrant a speedy deletion or fall under the criteria of WP:!. Anthem 17:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas . --Tothwolf (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking at the references, it appears to meet WP:CORP. It can be hard to write articles about semi-obscure companies without coming across as too positive, but having mild POV issues isn't a good reason to delete the article. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not personally familiar with the company's products, which are designed for other kinds of libraries than the ones I have worked in,  but it is clear from the references it's a major company with significant market share. The article needed some trimming, and I have just done it.    DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 15 June 2011 (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.