Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ObjectView

ObjectView

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable commercial software product. Might've been popular two decades ago, but I'm not finding any references that demonstrate notability now. Mikeblas (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It was marginally notable in the late '90s, but we have nothing here worth keeping. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until better can be made. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now: On the other hand it was one of the first commercial software suites specifically designed for creating and deploying web applications. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not web applications (broadly), as it was late to that game. If it had any significance, it was as a way to build clients for web services. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there references to that effect? If not, there's still no demonstration of notability, and the article must go. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The place to look would be old copies of Infoworld and Dr Dobbs. Early-mid '90s, this was yet another RAD / 4GL thing to let non-coder suits build Windows desktop apps, up against PowerBuilder and instead of Visual Basic. When the web happened, these things started to panic and looked for other niches to occupy. For ObjectView, this was adopting DCOM, XML-RPC and then SOAP to make use of web services, still largely targeted at building desktop apps rather than web back ends. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles aren't supposed to "go" based on their current state, but about what they could become when in a decent shape, with relevant references present. LjL (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to fix it. But I won't be, and I can't be arsed to do so as I don't think it's of enough significance to make it worth my own time. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not I can/will "fix it" has no relevance on whether the topic is appropriate to keep an article - which is my vote, by the way. It's a shame that so many people seem to think articles can be deleted based on their content, instead of their topic, which is not what policy says. LjL (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the article's current state. I'm talking about the availability of references. If references aren't available, the subject isn't notable and the article gets deleted. That's a pretty fundamental tenet of Wikipedia. Meanwhile, please remember that you're not voting here. -- 15:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)