Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydra (digital repository)

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 no consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hydra (digital repository)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still nothing suggesting convincing independent notability, the listed sources are not convincing and I have found nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. On one hand, there's no significant coverage. On the other, this software is clearly used by a number of major universities. Of course, that doesn't mean that there's sufficient information to be able to write a well-sourced article - and indeed, there isn't. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 01:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic has two dozen institutions as formal partners. This topic is referenced in Wikipedia articles, and is also used in citations to reference material stored in certain Hydra repositories. In Google searches I'm seeing text from Finland, Denmark, Korea, and England, as well as U.S. locations. Whatever is done with this topic, deletion would appear to do harm to the encyclopedia and the ability of editors to maintain the encyclopedia. I doubt that most editors care if it is merged to another topic, as long as they can locate information and link to it. Unscintillating (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, I completely agree with you that the software is used by a number of major universities and institutions. However, I don't think that's a valid claim of notability; for example, NSOFTWARE (an essay, admittedly) doesn't talk about uses of a given piece of software. Also, the topic is only referenced once in a Wikipedia article, a passing mention in the "Software implementation" section of Digital library. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 05:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You make good points, and my content knowledge cannot address your content questions. For example, why is this topic not covered or mentioned at Fedora Commons? I'll drop notes on the talk pages of Digital Library and Fedora Commons. Unscintillating (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that it's strange that more articles don't mention this seemingly widely-used piece of software. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 19:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Being used by notable people/companies is not much different than being employed by one to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears as a topic in digital library literature: "Domain-Specific Program Generation", The Librarian's Introduction to Programming Languages: A LITA Guide, Video Data Management and Information Retrieval, Digital Scholarship 2009, Building Trustworthy Digital Repositories: Theory and Implementation. Those are books; I could also provide articles, e.g. here.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 04:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Although the significance of the software in general may not warrant an article, its prominence in its own field hopefully warrants a section in its field article, Digital library. Coincidentally that article needs improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyuflamb (talk • contribs) 09:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hydra is listed in that article, but I don't see a feasible way to add more information. Similar software packages, like Islandora, have their own articles, and those are part of the FOSS portal. I will try to add to the Hydra article, but I am hampered by lack of access to databases that cover library topics. LaMona (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please review the changes I have made to the article, and let me know if you think it now meets WP:NSOFTWARE. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:11, 23 July 2016 (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.