Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apache Commons DbUtils


 * 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. The only person expressing a "keep" opinion, Shevonsilva, is now indef-blocked for creating such articles, see AN.  Sandstein  12:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Apache Commons DbUtils

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources that establish notability. And if were not the bullet pointing a single paragraph stub. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete I speedied this once as a promo, unsourced advantages, but no limitations or downsides Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly keep I have added more references and this is clearly notable otherwise I will not create this. I removed the deletion tag to save time as this is a clear mistake happened due to the fact of lacking knowledge of computer science.  Thanks.16:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You should not remove the tag whilst this afd is open.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's promotional because it is copied from the software's accompanying promotional blurb. Copying promotional blurbs into Wikipedia never goes well.  However, the subject is documented in depth.  Two books with this in are already cited in the article, although nothing that the books actually say is in the article, and this is the usual bad editing practice of carpet-bombing the first sentence with superfluous references rather than having a further reading section.  ISBN 9780131478305 chapter 14 has a small amount as well.  Copying promotional blurbs is not writing, and one points to further reading by having a further reading section.  Uncle G (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Modified biased content. Shevonsilva (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No you have not. You have not touched it at all, in fact, and the article is still the same as the software's accompanying promotional blurb.  Uncle G (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No that is not a promotional blurb. it is a open source freeware with Apache 2.0 license.  Some sections are about designed view points so, it should be as it is.  The descriptions are accurate. If you have good arguments against my view and if you understand software engineering (related to the content for the software library), kindly let me know.  Thanks.  Shevonsilva (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * is a copyrighted promotional blurb for a piece of software and your (non-)writing comprised copying it. The article remains even now a copy of that promotional blurb.  Uncle G (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, interesting. If the content is inaccurate, you or others have to prove it; it doesn't work in this way.  I included the design intention of the library and it should be from creators.  There is no misleading promotional content in the article (Note: this is a open-source free software module.): it does't really matter promotional or not if the content is accurate and, in this case, it is accurate; I am also welcoming your ideas too.  Thanks.  Shevonsilva (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't really know whether this is sufficiently notable, but I would point out that the creator, Shevonsilva, has a history of creating thousands of essentially vacuous stubs, with almost no text, but what there is being largely ungrammatical ("Sample code may look like as follows", for example). Given software entity P, he finds a list of components, p1...p27, and creates 27 articles, each of which says basically "pn is a component of P". He has a history of non-cooperation (deleting from talk page, not following conventions, deleting AfD templates etc.). I find it difficult to see how his efforts are actually improving WP. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * None of that is relevant to this AFD, it might be at ANI, but not here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non notable software library. Szzuk (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.