Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BibBase

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BibBase[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails GNG Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though it's a bit confusing because there seems to be older library software called Bibbase as well, ultimately this meets GNG [1][2][3] —siro χ o 02:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added these 3 sources to article —siro χ o 02:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the relist so took another look. I did a very minor expansion on the article with a couple more sources that have moderate coverage. Note that one source above was not independent, though as a published journal paper that presents the software, still might be a good reference for further reading. I'm still quite convinced this software is notable by GNG, as there are even more sources I haven't delved into yet (or cannot access to evaluate) —siro χ o 03:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Review after recent changes to the article since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to be enough here in terms of in-depth secondary sources needed to pass GNG, both as noted by siroxo and elsewhere. User:Let'srun 02:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as noted, several likely sources are paywalled. Let'srun (talk) 02:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's pretty borderline, but taking a look through the provided sources I reckon this passes GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2023 (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.