Talk:SedDB

Notability and possible alternatives to deletion

I proposed this article for deletion due to lack of notability/questioning if the database still existed. I Was finally able to access the database at portal.earthchem.org (have to disable any https enforcement), so it does exist. However, even with the added sources from @A. B., I am still questioning notability as one simply mentions SedDB as a part of an AGU meeting abstract and the second is an update written by the authors of the original article about the database. Lacking WP:SIGCOV that is independent of the subject, I would argue for deletion.

In my opinion, the best alternative to keep information about SedDB and similar databases on wiki (e.g. PetDB) would probably be the creation of a new article about one of the umbrella projects that SedDB sits under (i.e. earthchem or something similar). SedDB/PetDB and the like can have individual sections in these even if they lack significant independent coverage of their own.

I'm not sure I'll have time to tackle a new article in the near future. If anyone reading this does, let us know. If no one is planning to update this article or create a new article where it can be merged I will probably nominate SedDB for a deletion discussion to get more input. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Anonrfjwhuikdzz, I think you made a good assessment of the article regarding its problems. I did not catch the fact that one of the refs I added was written by one of the original authors. I believe peer-reviewed project descriptions may be ok as refs but I'm not certain. I think your idea to take this article to WP:AFD at some point is a good one - get more people to look at this. I'd be interested in others' assessment of the refs - does peer review make them more reliable?

Even better would be an umbrella Earthchem article as you suggested but I'm not very knowledgeable in this area. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)