Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DataObjects.NET (3rd nomination) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DataObjects.NET_(3rd_nomination)

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. Sandstein 06:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DataObjects.NET (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A very recent AFD(the second nomination) was closed as Merge due to no consensus for anything except removal of the article. However, the page cannot be merged:

• it does not contain any reliable independent sources. Insufficiently sourced content cannot be merged.
• it does not fit the scope of the list it is supposed to be merged into(only notable topics are allowed into that list)

It can neither be redirected:

• Because the article is outside of the scope of the list there is no valid reason to redirect. The redirect would not make any sense because it redirects to something else and cause confusion because the reader couldn't find what they look for on that page. A redlink would be more accurate. Lurking shadow (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The AfD was closed as merge to List of .NET libraries and frameworks and DataObjects.NET has been on that list since November 2018. Many of the items on that list don't have Wikipedia articles, just links to their websites. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good argument to remove it and anything similarly notable) from the list(as it is not considered notable and outside of the scope of the list).Lurking shadow (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I remove anything unsourced or only sourced to independent sources then there's nothing left. Nothing to merge, nothing to include in the list.Lurking shadow (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of .NET libraries and frameworks with minimal merging. (No prejudice against Delete.) As I said in the previous AfD:

  This AfD seems to be well-thought. My attempt to find anything about this subject was fruitless. I found a book on Amazon, but it was a copy of the Wikipedia article. So far, the only other option to deletion is giving it away to some other website that specializes in this material.

  I have to express my surprise on the previous AfD having been closed as "merge", seeing as the two participants in it both advised "Redirect". flowing dreams (talk page) 06:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • flowing dreams, what would you merge? There's only one source in the entire article, and it's not a reliable independent source. There isn't place for any merge, not even minimal. Redirection is also dubious - the entire material about DataObjects.NET will be removed if it isn't sourced to a reliable independent source. As will much more...Lurking shadow (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually have just begun with that - DataObjects.NET was originally part of that list, now it isn't anymore(just like several others)Lurking shadow (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • My dear colleague, a compromise entails some give and take. In the last AfD, both participants endorsed a "redirect" course of action, which is almost a "delete". But you disagreed; you wanted deletion and nothing else. Result: The article was kept instead. And now, in your so-called "Mass removal of very badly sourced entries" you've unlisted Windows Presentation Foundation, which has an entire article full of sources. It makes me think whether you actually care for the existence of sources or consensus. Be that as it may, I'm afraid I cannot help someone who so vehemently does not want my help. flowing dreams (talk page) 04:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • flowing dreams, that was a very bad error. Thanks for finding and fixing it. I wanted to remove the entry below and accidentally removed that entry that definitely shouldn't have been removed.Lurking shadow (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article does not seem to have improved since the last AfD, so delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Zero references, hence fails WP:V, hence can't be merged. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, someone did merge it, in compliance with the verdict of the previous AfD. flowing dreams (talk page) 05:05, 8 September 2019 (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.