Kennedy(2006) listed the broad reasons for weeding in the following order:

  1. Freeing up space
  2. Improving appearances
  3. Removing obsolete materials
  4. Removing little-used materials
  5. Saving staff time

Baumbach and Miller (2006) listed the objective and subjective weeding criteria in the following order:

  1. Age
  2. Use
  3. Physical Condition
  4. Currency of content
  5. Duplication
  6. Curricular Integration
  7. Appropriatenes to the collection
  8. Bias
  9. Obsolete Formats

Freeman (1991, pp. 55-57) as cited by Dillon( 2001 p. 248) listed the following broad criteria for weeding (includes elements of CREW and MUSTY):

  1. Physical condition
  2. Content
  3. Usage
  4. Other

I do agree with the notion that weeding(deselection) is just as important an activity for a strong collection management as the task of selection. For all reasons cited by Kennedy (2006), Dillon (2001), Baumbach and Miller (2006), i do find myself guilty of not giving weeding sufficient attention. As, I am also in support of Hughes-Hassell and Mancall (2005, p.33) selection criteria which are based primarily on meeting the needs and requirement of the curriculum & learning community, I do feel that the order of weeding criteria listed by authors above did not give emphasis to the aspect of the resources  ‘NO LONGER MEETING NEEDS OF CURRICULUM’ especially in the context of a school library. Unlike a public library which may based their selection criteria on ‘just-in-case’ they are needed policy, school libraries with limited budget and manpower, should base their collection development on meeting the curriculum and information needs of the users. Hence, deselection should also focus on resources that are no longer meeting the information needs of users and curriculum.