Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Virtual Private Library

Update: I count 3 votes to delete and 1 abstention. I've deleted The Virtual Private Library. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:33, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Ad PLUS vanity. Double plus ungood. "Bot pioneer and guru"? RickK 03:13, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Comment: I just edited this to reduce promotional language and POV. Dpbsmith 13:52, 22 May 2004 (UTC) P. S. That does NOT mean I think it should be kept. But anyone who is unsure why it was listed on VfD should refer to the original version. I'm on the fence myself. The real question, in my mind, is whether the contents of the free "information blogs" are valuable enough to warrant mentioning in Wikipedia. For example, how does the the Reference Resources list compare with, say, refdesk? Click, click: Wikipedia isn't included in the Reference Resources. Although it isn't in the Encyclopedias list at Refdesk either, shame, shame! Dpbsmith 20:57, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think even after your edit, it still seems to me like an advert.  I just don't see the relevance or need for this article.  blankfaze | &#9787 00:26, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Still a sales blurb IMO. I think the problem is simply that there isn't anything encyclopedic to say. Andrewa 04:24, 24 May 2004 (UTC)