Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decline of library usage

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. postdlf (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of library usage[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I submitted this article for deletion. It contains original research, POV, and weak citations, leading to a factually inaccurate conclusion. For an alternative perspective, see more recent statistics suggesting that libraries served 297.6 million (equivalent to 96.4%) Americans in 2013 (source), and 80% of Americans between 16 and 29 see libraries as "very important" (source). I tried to think of some ways to repair this article, but the premise itself is flawed. Libraryowl (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)— Libraryowl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Neutral - a notable topic, but article is plagued by WP:POV issues. An ideal article here would discuss sources that claim a decline as well as those that refute such a decline; a WP:TNT deleting may be in order, but I'll see what others have to say first. Ansh666 06:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, there's support for WP:TNT delete, but given DGG's wall of text below (which I actually read, by the way) I'll remain neutral. Ansh666 00:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion: The content of the current article does not seem redeemable. Too much OR, POV, SYNTH, ESSAY, and just-plain-incorrectness. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion: The article has misconceptions and inaccuracies. There is a long discussion of use patterns in academic libraries by Walt Crawford at http://citesandinsights.info/civ13i3.pdf. In addition, the article title implies use in all libraries, but the article itself discusses academic libraries almost exclusively. Crawford has written also about public library use statistics. (Note: I am the state data coordinator for Louisiana, and am responsible for submitting public library statistics to the IMLS) Michael Golrick (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC) ~~— Mgolrick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ The (spa) tag left on Mgolrick's post would seem to be in error as the account has edited 10 different articles over the space of 8 years. Shearonink (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current draft requires improvement, not deletion, per our editing policy. The worst case would be merger into a section of a larger article such as Library#Usage, for which additional citations are requested. But there's a lot more to say beyond the narrow perspective of American librarians. For example, there are widespread library closures in the UK and that aspect is certainly notable. Warden (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the closure of UK libraries is a noteworthy issue. If the article is retained, it should give information about the status of libraries around the world. But while there are a number of reasons for the closure of UK libraries, this article suggests that overall library usage is declining due to technological change. I don't see the support for that premise, either in the article or the available statistics. Technology is affecting libraries in complex and dynamic ways, and I'm not sure we can draw a conclusion yet about what that means for physical library buildings, academic and university libraries or the role of the library in a community. I'm not even sure these issues should be addressed in a single article. There are so many changes to be made--starting with the title--that WP:TNT seems to be in order. Libraryowl (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT is not policy — not even close. The author of that personal essay created few articles - just feeble stuff like Ghastly - and was sent packing from the project by arbcom. If people think they can do better than this current content then there's nothing stopping them from rolling up their sleeves and getting on with it. Warden (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is indeed somewhat of an essay, but it's a sourced essay, not an opinion piece. (1) I do not see OR. It explains what is happening, basing every paragraph on a good source. There's a misunderstanding here: Every general article is to some extent OR and SYNTH, because the selection of what information to present is a form of research, and organizing it is a form of synthesis. This applies, for example, to every historical article in WP, or every article on a concept from the humanities or social sciences. If they do not represent an appropriate selection and organization of material, they're a collection of random facts. If they do, it inevitably leads in a direction. The sort of OR and SYNTH we prohibit is where it goes beyond the sources. (2) And it's not a bad summary, much more coherent that most WP articles. The key problems are that too many of the sources are outdated (most of the article was written in 2009), and the writing is a little too much in the academic style. It would benefit from a clearer distinction of the different types of libraries and of different countries, though the trend is common across all libraries (primarily, for the rather obvious reason that there are now alternatives--after all, what are we doing here at WP if not producing an alternative?) (3) A better presentation would need great expansion, and an analysis of the differences and the variation, and the measures taken to try to deal with this. The situation is not really the same as 4 years ago, any more than the internet is the same. (4) I will be glad to have a professional discussion with Mgolrick why he uses the term "why" rather than "incomplete" --it may be different perspectives, as I'm an academic librarian, albeit with my major experience in one of the most traditional of all academic libraries, and I know what we do is very different than 30 years ago, and our role in some ways less central & more easily substituted. I think he means that the traditional measures do not necessarily apply, and that the role is still important, and it is possible to show it. It may be better to call it a change in the pattern of use rather than a decline I suggest what he do is add the material he thinks should be added. Crawford is a very good source, though he is , like this article, more interested in academic than public libraries. I consider his blog postings as authoritative as any conventionally published source, though it may be difficult to convince some WPedians of that.(4a) Libraryowl' says he sees no way to improve the article, which I do not understand. As always, one updates and adds correct material, fairly presented. I wonder if the meaning is he sees no way to discuss the material to reach the desired conclusion, since his perspective is not altogether supported by an actual reading of the facts. That 96.4% is not 96% using libraries, but 96% living in areas that support public libraries. And many more people think anything "important" than actually use it significantly. There's a figure missing from the IMLS report--the relative borrowing of print and nonprint materials. It does give the increase in children's use, but doesn't explicitly state whether there's an increase in adult use. (deriving that figure from the summary report would be SYNTH, so I don't give it) Librarians, just as other professions, have developed considerable skill at presenting data in a way that is technically accurate but not necessarily valid. The report is honest enough to give one key point of perspective: use always increases in a depression as people cannot afford alternatives and have more free time due to greater unemployment. It also very rightly emphasises how a key social function of public libraries has become the provision of computer services to those who cannot afford them otherwise. (5) This problem of being outdated is present across almost all of WP except current politics and sport and popular culture. Nobody thought 11 years ago about the fact encyclopedias need periodic major revision, and that it is much less exciting to do this & therefore less attractive to volunteers. This was the main problem with print encyclopedias --there was no practical way of revising between major new editions, and the new editions were such great work that they were rare, and usually the update was inadequate. We've solved the problem of minor updating of popular topics, but not of rewriting the basic material. (6) The problem about being based on only some countries and only some of the possible situations is also universal in WP. It is a very rare article which gives equally appropriate coverage to both the US and the UK, to say nothing about the other major English speaking countries, or especially the rest of the world. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be convincing, the page would have to establish the following:

1. Library usage is consistently declining across all types of libraries and among all types of users (note that the article itself contradicts this claim). [Added later: If updated, the article should also establish that the decline in usage has not stabilized or changed since the article was written, and/or that if the trend has changed, a decline in academic library usage between 2000-2009 is independently notable Libraryowl (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)][reply]

2. This decline is due primarily to technological change, rather than a combination of factors (for example--but not limited to--the financial strain the recession has had on municipal budgets).

3. A decline in something like door count or print circulation is not being "made up for" by an increase in the usage of new or different library services (that is, it would have to establish what is meant by "decline in usage").

4. A decline in usage at a rural public library in Alabama, a university library in Pennsylvania, the British Library, and the Library of Congress all have the same basic cause.

5. That all of this is notable enough that the topic deserves its own article, rather than incorporation into an article that includes a) a wide range of library statistics, or b) a subtopic on about the changing role of public/academic/UK/whatever libraries.

It may indeed be that library usage is declining due to technological change. I don't believe that's the case, but I'm not making encyclopedic claims here, merely asserting that the article's fundamental assumptions can and should be contested. Right now, the last section of the article openly contradicts the introduction. Even those of us who would like to retain the article admit that (some?) library usage has increased. That means the picture is more complex than a "decline of library usage." Incidentally, I see Wikipedia as something you access from a library, not something that is a replacement for a library, but I'm happy to admit that's POV. If someone would like to take a crack at improving this article, I'm willing to keep an open mind. However, if it's not worth the time and effort to fix, then I still think there's a case for deletion here. Right now this is the first page that comes up when people Google "decline in library usage." I will be the first to admit that this issue hits close to home, but I'm uncomfortable with an incomplete article being used as evidence for a decline in libraries. Libraryowl (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a well-sourced article on an important topic. It deals with trends over the last two decades that academic librarians have frequently noted. The complain that it reads like an essay is a misinterpretation. In my view "essay" (per Wiki rules) = personal opinions; that is not the case here. As DGG point out, the need for updating to the most recent data is a problem for all of the older articles at Wikipedia and is a poor reason to delete an article. Rjensen (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rjensen, I notice that you substantially altered and removed remarks by several other people in this edit. That is not appropriate. Please do not do that again. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be fine if the article was "decline in usage of (some? American?) academic libraries." I object to the idea that outdated resources are a minor issue. If the more recent data contradicts the article's premise, or paints a more complex picture, then the article itself is inaccurate. If overall library usage has increased due to the recession (which is actually asserted in the article), then the article is inaccurate. And if academic libraries have different usage patterns than other kinds of libraries, then the article is inaccurate. Finally, if fewer people are using libraries because hours and services have been cut, then the article is accurate but incomplete. A more complete article would be a different article: different title, different organization, different topics. At that point, the difference between editing it and deleting it is basically semantics; at least this way there's a formal discussion. Also, deleting my comments: not cool. P.S. While I nominated this article for deletion, I am also open to merge, as my comments above reflect. Libraryowl (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Decline of library usage has some instructive comments about the viability of the article that are one & two years old. At the very least the article is mis-titled. More appropriate titles would be "Academic library usage" (OT, but the Academic library article needs some help too...) or "Patterns of modern library usage" or "Technology & libraries" or whatever...perhaps merging the idea of the content (necessitating a re-write, especially of the lede) within other library-focussed article/s is possible. Shearonink (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All problems indicated in the nomination can be solved by editing, therefore they have to be solved by editing, per our deletion policy: AFD is not cleanup. Topic is notable and well documented in sources. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the topic itself has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - From just today (July 20), for example: "Mayor Of Miami-Dade Thinks Libraries Are Outdated (Video)" http://samuel-warde.com/2013/07/mayor-of-miami-dade-thinks-libraries-outdated/ Opening paragraph: "Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez commented to a WPLG-ABC 10 reporter: 'People have said that the age of the library is probably, you know, ending.'" --Lawfare (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Other people have mentioned the problems with the name of the article. At the very least it needs to be changed to "Academic library usage", since public library usage has not declined, a Jan. 2013 Pew study says, for example, "Overall, 52% of recent library users say their use of the library in the past five years has not changed to any great extent. At the same time, 26% of recent library users say their library use has increased and 22% say their use has decreased." Olegkagan (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the concept has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and has been the subject of specific academic studies. Questions as to article name should be resolved on the article's talk page. Not liking that there has been a decline in library use is not the same as that concept not being notable. Stalwart111 07:36, 26 July 2013 (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.