Talk:Future of libraries
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Future of libraries redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 August 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Trends in library usage. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
[Untitled]
[edit]While this article is under a deletion discussion with a likely consensus that it should be merged with other articles, I have removed what I believe is likely WP:SYNTH. So far discussion participants have suggested that the citations & remaining material could by useful on the following pages: trends in library usage, history of libraries, history of books, bookselling and public libraries. Please add information from this page to appropriate pages as desired or as necessary. --Libraryowl (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I have started to merge the sourced material from this article with others per the ongoing deletion discussion. I know I'm the one who got dinged for WP:SYNTH, so feel free to check up behind me. The Nancy Roderer quote went to bookless libraries. The remaining citations and content from the "bookless libraries" paragraph would be redundant and can be deleted IMHO. The pg on "learning commons" has been moved to Learning commons, a page, incidentally, that still needs some pretty significant attention. The paragraph on the "bookstore model" has gone to the public libraries section of Trends in library usage. The ARL survey information about scholarly publishing went to the academic libraries section of Trends in library usage. The other information/citations in that section would be redundant in the "trends" article. Further work that needs to be done here: the information on book attitudes and usage needs to go into an article about e-books, publishing or bookselling. The funding challenges information is already in the "trends" article, but may be useful somewhere else. The section on patron-driven acquisition may be useful to the trends article, but could just as easily be deleted. I am also neutral on the section on digital libraries. Libraryowl (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)