Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vidyanidhi Digital Library

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 Delete. CitiCat ^♫ 21:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vidyanidhi Digital Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable software; looks like an advertisement. Shalom ^Hello 01:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it seems like an ad. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. thisisace 13:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is an national list and repository of PhD theses, similarly to those in other nations. Interestingly, the best known one, Dissertation Abstracts International (DAI), was deleted as db-spam some time ago; the article was hopeless skimpy and unreferenced, and not unreasonably the importance of these databases was not recognized. These are a major part of the scientific educational and publication system, and the material from at least the US one is included by reference (essentially what we call transclusion) in other indexes, such as Chemical Abstracts, and Scirus, and at least the recent ones are listed in Google Scholar & all major libraries have subscriptions to the full versions In print days, they formed a basic component of reference rooms. DAI, despite the "International" offers very skimpy coverage outside the US & CAnada. the ones in other countries are much less well know, but the effort to produce them is important as giving parity to the scholarship in other countries. I will recreate the US one soon, complete with references and the like. I suppose I can recreate this one afterwards if it gets deleted now, but better to not remove it in the first place. I've altered the promotional prose, and added a number of third party sources. DGG (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while it is useful and kinda kewl, there is no showing that this is notable. Carlossuarez46 00:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.