Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhagesDB

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. consensus is to keep; best title can be determined. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PhagesDB[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. References appear to be other directories and a primary-source paper on the database. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's certainly being used a lot. There are hundreds (no exaggeration) of papers that cite it as the source of their phage data [1]. We have plenty of articles about scientific databases that are considered notable based on their uptake and frequency of appearance as cited sources, not secondary coverage - e.g, just to grab a few taxonomic ones, Hymenoptera genome database, Index Fungorum, World Checklist of Selected Plant Families... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a fair argument to keep, but not so compelling I'm going to withdraw this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is just a reference to another database that is widely used and referenced by lots of pages [2]. However, I suppose it can be edited more to make it less 'fluffy' and more factual. It could also be converted to a stub instead of keeping it as a full blown article. Imanraja (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC) — Imanraja (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This is an extremely important topic which can be used worldwide. Many learning institutions use this database and this page provides the right amount of information. Aviayossefi1 (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC) — Aviayossefi1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comments: Lots of reasons to keep the Actinobacteriophage database, "commonly known" (with only 3 references) as PhagesDB that is self described as a database-backed website. Why have an ambiguous title "known" only in a smaller circle as DB? Actinobacteriophage database is self describing and less ambiguous. Sometimes "short and to the point" translates to "too short and confusing". Otr500 (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2018 (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.