Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oracle Fusion Middleware

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.

Oracle Fusion Middleware

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nomination withdrawn as article rescued. Bardcom (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly written article on a subject of questionable notability. Tags were placed on this article last October and December, but very little improvement since. Basically the article is written like an ad, has no references, and is therefore original research. Bardcom (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Thanks to Michig for rescuing the article and thanks to Celarnor for help and advice Bardcom (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- non notable, advert. AndreNatas (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being poorly written is no reason for deletion. The various components are in some cases very widely used, and have been the subject of several text books written and published independent of Oracle. I disagree that it's written like an ad.--Michig (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, there are plenty of news articles([1]).--Michig (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a ref. to a Gartner paper that discusses amongst other things the revenue Oracle receive from OFM, which I think makes it clear that the subject is notable. By all means slap a {{refimprove}} tag on the article, but there's no way it should be deleted.--Michig (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be notable by news coverage. If the nominator has problems with the way the article is written, he/she should be WP:BOLD and fix it rather than throw it at AfD. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celarnor, if the article is notable, it should have references and stand on it's own two feet. Numerous tags were added to the article, and the article remained poorly written. I nominated the article because of this. Perhaps if you have a problem with articles being "thrown" at AfD, you can be WP:Bold and fix it yourself. I wouldn't know where to start with it. Bardcom (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Searching Google and Google News is always a good start in determining notability, although lack of hits on either would not necessarily indicate a lack of notability. In what way is the article poorly written? I don't want to spend too much time on this article but if you have specific concerns I'll have a go at addressing them.--Michig (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of thinking indicates a deep, deep misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. Something isn't notable because of what's written in an the article, things are notable based on what's in the real world. And I would be out fixing articles such as this if I wasn't spending all my time on AfDs trying to keep them from getting deleted. My point is that before putting something up for AfD, you should either research it yourself or refer the article to the article rescue squad. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celarnor, I respectfully disagree. A stub article has a certain period of time to reach a level of quality - editors can write the article and search for verified sources to back up claims. Articles that do not meet this level of minimim quality usually indicate a lack of notability. This article has been tagged for a loooonnngggg time, and still fails to back up any claims made. Don't wag the finger at me for nominating the article - look instead to the editors who created a poor quality article, made numerous unsubstantiated claims, and ignored the polite tagging reminding them to address the issues highlighted. Perhaps the product is notable, but the article should stand alone and not require readers to verify this fact for themselves. A discussion has been started on the article talk page. Bardcom (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DEADLINE, Wikipedia has no deadline. AfDs are not about the article. They are about the subject. If the subject is notable and sourcable, than it does not deserve deletion. Per the news sources given higher up in the AfD, and the ones already on the page, and the numerous technical reviews and whitepapers as well as winning awards, there's really no reason to delete this; reason to improve upon it, sure, as many of these things are not listed on the page, but not to delete it. AfD is not forced cleanup. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is not a consumer level product, but it is notable. It's quite easy to find sources. The article could use more of them, and a rewrite to make it more accessible, but it does not need to explain everything in layman's terms (middleware being, by definition, software that acts as the glue or conduit between two other unrelated pieces of software). --Dhartung | Talk 21:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly notable enterprise software. The article could use some work, but that's not a reason for deletion. Klausness (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2008 (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.