Talk:Ebrary

Libraries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Databases (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases articles

Untitled

The information is straightforeward description of an academicc service available online at many libraries. The editor has no connection whatever with the company. Rjensen (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this article ebrary is spelled with a capital E, but they refer to themselves as "ebrary." fwiw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.230.64.162 (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This article meets criteria A and B because..."

I cited numerous RS that evaluate ebrary and explain its value especially to smaller regional universities in England and Turkey. see text at footnotes 2-3-4. also cites to good RS by Mullarkey, in The Acquisitions Librarian 19.3-4 (2008): 213-230. and Qiuping, Zhang, and Yuan Hao. in Library Journal 1 (2008). Rjensen (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Dispute

I believe this article reads like advertising copy: it extols the benefits of a private, for-profit company with no criticism of their DRM-heavy policies or aggressive business model -- c.f. here, for example. – 81.110.99.109 (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the cleanup tag from "POV" to "advert" in line with the comment above. The "advert" tag says "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view." - so still refers to neutrality as well. Nurg (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no POV and no ads here.. (I wrote much of it and I have zero connection). it follows the Wikipedia guidelines and is based on independent published reliable sources. If someone wants to attack it they are lacking RS. Rjensen (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]