Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open catalogue

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Open catalogue[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 WP:GNG. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am quite sure that this is not a thing. The term "open catalogue" does get used but in a wide variety of contexts, and has nothing to do with the Open Library. This isn't in itself a neologism because it doesn't have a single usage nor a single definition, from a site of graphics representing open documents, to machine translation services, and many other uses. It seems that someone thinks that this term was invented by a certain professor for a specific software development, but it is not limited to that and we have no proof of invention. Lamona (talk) 05:08, 8 January 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.