Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Db4o


 * 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 keep. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Db4o
Proposed for CSD (A7, G11) with no consensus. Rjgodoy (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep. The subject of the article is notable enough (e.g. ). I'm nominating it because it was proposed for CSD at least twice, and it was also reverted to stub. However, the article needs some third party sources, and may have to be rewritten. Rjgodoy (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong and speedy keep.     etc. Even covered in college textbooks . The article could use some work, but it's definitely nowhere near the advertorial level required for deletion. Also a 7-part tutorial in IBM developerWorks, which was already linked in the article. Big WP:TROUT for the guys trying to CSD this. Pcap  ping  15:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, weakly. But note that the article was full of swatches of totally unacceptable puffery.  I removed a few of the most blatant examples, but much more needs to be done here.  It could very easily have been deleted as unambiguous advertising, and proposing this article in the state I found it in was not unreasonable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed more from further below. . I only skimmed it the first time. Pcap ping  16:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. My litmus for software is that a book has been written about it; ISBN 1590596560 for this one. The article needs aggressive editing, though. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Pcap & Mikeblas. The article does need some love though. --Cyber cobra (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave it some tough love by removing many of the essayistic endeavors of the article's creator :-) Pcap ping  20:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Per why the heck is this nom here? LotLE × talk  03:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While I agree with keeping the article, other editors considered it should be deleted:
 * 2010-01-07T21:37:52 User:Anthony Appleyard rv to stub & remove the advertizing
 * 2010-01-07T19:12:59 User:SamJohnston g11 - blatant advertising, a7 - no assertion of notability.
 * 2009-12-15T04:32:59
 * Since I reverted Anthony's edit and I also opposed Sam's CSD request, I wanted to be sure that other editors endorsed my action. Rjgodoy (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2010 (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.