Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KUPS (database)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KUPS (database)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see any notability here, although if someone were to present it I'd consider. To me, it fails WP:NOTCATALOG and just doesn't seem to "fit" into Wikipedia. Perhaps enthusiastic editors could try another wiki more suited.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While there is no indication of notability in the article, indications of notability can readily be found in [1]. Per Paulmcdonald's thoughts abut salvaging this content, perhaps transwikying to Wikidata is a possible ATD? — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: We have a Wikidata entry for this database, Q6339697, but it is unsourced, so I would prefer Transwiki to Wikidata Q6339697 to delete. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability as above, plus database link is 404. This is one of a number of 'drive-by' articles on bioinformatics databases by the same author (now apparently retired from WP). Amkilpatrick (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikidata Q6339697 - no prospects for growth as a Wikipedia article, but the material is usable to supplement what we have at Wikidata. I can do this transwikying. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RELISTINGISEVIL there is no need to "relist" this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2022 (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.