Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Reference Library Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electronic_Reference_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. Editors can choose to create a redirect if they wish. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Reference Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No refs on the page for many years. Seems to be an obsolete service from SilverPlatter described by generic words. Redirecting to SilverPlatter would appear to potentially cause confusion as the words Electronic Reference Library could be used in other contexts. Not convinced there is a need to redirect or merge, not finding sources to consider against the inclusion criteria JMWt (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Term is too generic to help find things related to this particular service. Obsolete, so we won't find much coverage of it these days. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to SilverPlatter where it is mentioned as WP:ATD. No specific name clashes have been identified and these can be handled at WP:RFD if identified in the future. ~Kvng (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there's only one redirect !vote, there is a clear consensus to eliminate the article but not quite enough discussion for a sure delete over redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vague term, so a redirect may not be helpful as per nom. Since little in the way of sourcing could be found, I don't see any reason to keep. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2024 (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.