Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awesome Library (2nd nomination)

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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Library

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

Looks to go way back on the web, but I'm just not finding sources to pass WP:GNG. The majority of the article is currently links to lists that include the site (e.g. a section on "Library Recommended Lists"). Seems like it's pointedly trying to show notability but in the process hurting the article and failing in the attempt. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's kind of secondary to the sourcing, but the site is basically a web relic -- a website directory with heavy advertising. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing the in depth cverage and independence needed. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did not find any independent reliable source with significant (or in fact any) coverage about the topic to meet WP:GNG. I admit I didn't search long; the name's generic quality makes it challenging to search. No sources are currently cited in the article. I read the previous discussion and simply disagree with the rationale that "keep" voters applied, i.e. that reliable sources are unnecessary because links on independent websites (Yahoo, NASA, etc.) that describe the site are sufficient. I'll check back here in case someone posts reliable sources that I overlooked. Agyle (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2014 (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.