Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DbForge Data Compare for Oracle


 * 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. Saying sources exist without providing them is useless. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 09:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

DbForge Data Compare for Oracle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Prodded a week ago for having no secondary sources; prod template removed without explanation half an hour before it expired, article still has no secondary sources. The same goes for these three other articles about the same company's products, which I am bundling into the same AfD:

All of these software articles lack any secondary sources, and appear to be being edited by a user with a conflict of interest. --McGeddon (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to revise all of these software articles as soon as possible and add external links from trustworthy resources. Is is possible to delay the deletion deadline for 24 more hours? -Marina Nastenko (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete all. No reliable third party sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This company is a integration partner of Microsoft and Oracle. They are clearly notable. Sources are available. scope_creep talk 19:50 24 October 2013  (UTC)


 * Delete - No reliable references in article to support notability of this software. A search did not reveal any RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. This is an article on software, not the company, and notability is not inherited, so taking the position that Devart (currently in a separate afd discussion) is notable is not an argument for keeping this article.Dialectric (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2013 (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.