Beta-Lactamase Database (BLDB): Tagged non-notable for years without improvement * Pppery * it has begun... 23:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I can find several mentions in primary sources (mostly comparing it to other beta-lactamase databases, of which there are several ), but no significant secondary coverage.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The database is cited hundreds of times in the literature, appearing in several recent review articles as well.  While those probably don't qualify as significant coverage, I would argue it is notable though niche.  The Beta-lactamase article even uses it as a reliable source.  Not sure what the outcome should be, but deletion doesn't seem appropriate.   ― Syn path 19:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , but include the information in the article on β-lactamase .  I don't see any point in having a separate article.  Athel cb ( talk ) 16:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : If the decision is to not keep it as a separate article but to include it at Beta-lactamase , it should be retained as a redirect given that it is listed at List of biological databases .  ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 05:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is actually a good and helpful database.  What needs to be deleted is another page, i.e. Beta-Lactamase Database (BLAD) (it is no longer operational).  My very best wishes ( talk ) 16:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  This deletion is long overdue, given how long it has been tagged without getting improved.  Redirect seems unnecessary because people are not likely to use this as the search term instead of simply Beta-Lactamase.  Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  17:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - good, helpful, and even useful , but there are few secondary sources .  Sorry.  Bearian ( talk ) 19:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you mean RS which cite this database (indeed, they are secondary in this regard), there are hundreds.  Looking in Web of Science database, the paper about this resource, i.e. "Beta-lactamase database (BLDB) - structure and function" by Naas et al. is a highly cited paper, and it is cited in 306 other publications.  This is the reason I think it is notable enough and voted to keep.  I never used it though because my interests are different.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 21:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This database is cited in 69 scientific review papers.  One could make a really big and nice page about BLDB on wiki using these reviews.  It is just that the authors apparently do not care.  The actual candidate for deletion is another page (see above).  My very best wishes ( talk ) 21:56, 19 December 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.

Discussion outcome: delete