Talk:Public library ratings

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-09-12. The result of the discussion was keep.

Untitled

I suggest this article be deleted. I added the criticism section, since the article was written by the very person who sells "HAPLR" as a product. Essentially he is using Wikipedia to promote his project. Until I added some pertinent criticism there was no attempt to bring any balance to the subject. This piece comes perilously close to using Wikipedia as an advertising medium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camjoe (talk • contribs) 17:13, 8 September 2007

I'm with you on this. One of the pertinent criticisms that could be made of the HAPLR ratings is why it doesn't also provide the names of the worst-rated libraries. Only by providing those names can the really dysfunctional public libraries be given attention and/or weeded out.Godofredo29 (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be deleted, if for no other reason than that it is now quite obsolete. There has been no activity associated with HAPLR ratings for several years. It appears to be a defunct product.

Article name

Is it necessary to limit the article scope to public libraries? Any objections to changing the name to library rating system? John Vandenberg 13:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the ARL ratings for US/Canada research university libraries could be added as a section to start things off. I do not know what else there may be. DGG (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

I warn the anon. who is adding biographical material about Dr. Hemming to this page that it is considered spam. It has now been removed by several different editors and it will not be tolerated. Considering its persistence, I have semi-protected the page. DGG (talk) 07:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]