Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BitterDB


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 11:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

BitterDB

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparent vanity Wikipedia article for a service that has not yet proved to be of adequate significance. May be deserving of an article in the future, but certainly not yet. (Published in journal with moderately high impact factor (eight) only this year. Has been cited only once according to ISI Web of Knowledge.) Bueller 007 (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Because science. There is no blatant promotion here. I'll use the "this is an encyclopedia and science articles should be more loved" equivalent to WP:VAGUEWAVE here. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Just because it is about science does not mean it must be kept. Even scientific articles must meet the thresholds of notability and encyclopedic value. The article is largely unsourced and lacks any indication as to its notability. In fact, it reads more like an article on "bitter" than about the database. Agent 86 (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – the primary citation describing this database which was published January 2013 (after subtracting self-citations) has already been cited  5 times and hence its notability is supported by indepdent reliable sources.  Boghog (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Seems to fall into the category of scientific reference works. Those usually have less available in the way of external references, since they are references. -- BenTels (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.