Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DPVweb


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

DPVweb

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable database/website. Most sources seems to be affiliated with the creators of the database and there also appear to be some COI present. Although there seems to be quite a lot of papers citing DPVweb as a source, there is little or no coverage of the database itself. Bjelleklang -  talk 20:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep David Condrey   log talk  23:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. If reliably published academic sources use this as a reference (and they do--, ), then one can be sure that it's a notable database. But there's also some discussion, and I have no doubt there's more. Searching for the term in Google Books delivers plenty of results. They're mostly not helpful in article writing, but they indicate the subject is notable. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 15:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep This is a clear one. Sure, it shows the weaknesses of Wikipedia policy's deference to academic sources over independent, web-based content, but this is supported by numerous and well-cited scientific sources and has been in use long enough to be notable. I note the COI issues, but the citations of the papers and mentions elsewhere outweigh that concern. Sure, many other scientists aren't going to talk at length about the database they use for research, but that fact that they are, and that it's relevant enough for a citation, proves the point. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2015 (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.