- 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. Jreferee t/c 14:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Objectivity/DB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by the Chief Technology Officer and the founding member of Objectivity, Inc [1] with no other edits other than related to Objectivity, Inc. This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see also →Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Objectivity.2C_Inc. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 18:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I can't reach a quick conclusion, but I strongly suspect this is a notable company and product. Per the company's website it is a 50+ person software company with major investors and global distribution, and a product line that has been around for 20 years. A google search reveals 100,000+ articles and close to 250+ news stories. However, as with all software products most of these are passing mentions, download sites, and press releases so it becomes a needle/haystack problem. One beginning of a source is http://www.fcw.com/print/10_37/news/84320-1.html. It's clearly a real company and a real product, anyway. Although there are COI and spam problems, there is a lot of useful content in the piece as written. It doesn't help Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission to jettison legitimate content about a substantial company simply because of trouble with the article. If the subject is notable but the article is messy, it's not a proper candidate for deletion. It can be cleaned up or stubbified. Wikidemo 19:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am sorry! The article reads like and advertisement. In Googleing the company, I do not see any noteworthy references. I do see advertisements! Shoessss | Chat 22:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are plenty of references to the system in Google Books (91) and Google Scholar (600+), some of them fairly "objective". This article has tone problems and goes into unnecessary jargon and detail but could easily be improved. Objectivity/DB is clearly a major object-oriented DBMS implementation that has been around for at least a decade and a half, an eternity in software terms. (It seems to be used more in scientific applications than business, perhaps accounting for its lack of tech news coverage.) I have to ask whether the article should be more about the software or the company. --Dhartung | Talk 23:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If about software, a definite Keep. In that case, the whole article must be restructured. However, the article reads like an advertisement. In that case, still stand by my Delete. Shoessss | Chat 23:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and stubbify per Dhartung. -- intgr [talk] 01:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This was a company which designed one of the first object databases, it was well known and respected in the IT industry. The article needs attention though. scope_creep (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2007 (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.