Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YugabyteDB
- 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- YugabyteDB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Clear advertising. Only independent reference is used to reference product information also available from primary sources and does not show why this product is notable. Dirk Beetstra T C 20:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am the original author of the page but have no objection to it being deleted. This is not the first time it was nominated. In the previous deletion nomination discussion, your assertion that only primary sources was refuted by others (not me) and the other sources that are used were noted. The "clear advertising" came from using the Cassandra page as a template and changing the bullets to be about this database instead. Later someone flagged the Cassandra page as advertising as well. Reboot (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, can you point me to the previous discussion? And as far as I see, there is only one reliable, independent reference, the infoworld one. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think they are referring to the Talk page. Greenman (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, can you point me to the previous discussion? And as far as I see, there is only one reliable, independent reference, the infoworld one. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am the original author of the page but have no objection to it being deleted. This is not the first time it was nominated. In the previous deletion nomination discussion, your assertion that only primary sources was refuted by others (not me) and the other sources that are used were noted. The "clear advertising" came from using the Cassandra page as a template and changing the bullets to be about this database instead. Later someone flagged the Cassandra page as advertising as well. Reboot (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2021 (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.