::: There is no concept in Wikipedia of a paper being "too old" to be a useful reference.  We have plenty of articles with references that are thousands of years old.  Some things in the world were true when they were written and remain true.  We shouldn't regard MacPartland as "out of date" until/unless things that it says are proven to be false by more recent papers.  That process can be done on a case-by-case basis.  In short - if you think something that we've said in the article is incorrect - despite having a reference - then it is incumbent on you to back that up with a more modern/more respectable reference.  Specifically, it is not sufficient to say "well, that reference is kinda old - we can ignore it". 

 ::: Generally, we prefer a broad base of different reference sources - but if there is one seminal work that covers all the bases - then there is no reason to dismiss it just because we've used it in a lot of places.  Once again, if you find a better reference for the same fact (and "better" might just mean "different" in this case), then by all means add it.  Even then, there is no need to replace the much-used reference - it's perfectly OK to add a second, third or fourth reference backing up the same fact (especially if it's a widely misunderstood or little-known fact). 

 ::: Importantly - even if the only reference for a fact is (a) old and (b) over-used - that is emphatically NOT a reason to leave a key fact out of our article.  It's only a reason to look for a "better" (more modern, less frequently used) reference.