Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhDTree

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PhDTree

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

In the first place, the PhDTree home page is dead and buried, and that alone should be sufficient reason to get rid of this Wikipedia page. Note that this page is the only contribution its author, User:Jack1898 , has ever made which immediately raises the suspicion that the only purpose of this page's existence is nothing but self-promotion i.e.: it is spam; that alone should raise a huge red flag.
Secondly, the PhDTree.org domain stands accused of spamming, see Scientific Spam Once again, that alone should suffice to zap this page: AFAIK Wikipedia has always taken a dim view of spammers, or is that perhaps changed since I left?
In the third place, PhDTree is notorious for plagiarism. It started of by wholesale copying the entire Mathematics Genealogy Project and the Academic Family Tree, and Proquest databases, and perhaps some other websites as well, without any acknowledgement whatsoever. I could demonstrate that in a minute if PhDTree were still alive. Clearcut case of plagiarism, Once again, it has always been my understanding that Wikipedia takes a dim view of plagiarism. JdH (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply because it's only mentioned in a couple of forums. Also delete Template:PhDTree. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem with the article is the fairly terrible quality of the sources. I could imagine keeping it if there are reliable sources (for example, for the plagiarism and spam allegations, which could actually make the site more notable than an honest one). So delete (but note that the only argument given by the nominator that has any weight in my view is the "self-promotion"/"spam" claim). —Kusma (t·c) 20:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 23:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. This source never achieved any real impact/recognition/use, which is reflected in the (lack of) good sources. Seems to have died an unceremonious death. Agricola44 (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2017 (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.