Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shine Enterprise Java Pattern
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JForget (talk | contribs) at 01:23, 25 July 2010 (Closing debate, result was delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 01:23, 25 July 2010 by JForget (talk | contribs) (Closing debate, result was delete)
- 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. JForget 01:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shine Enterprise Java Pattern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not an instruction manual or collection of FAQ's, which is what this article seems to be Acather96 (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of notability, whatsoever. Smartse (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is currently two things: 1) a description of a FOSS project based on several other Java FOSS projects, non-notable per WP:GNG with no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; 2) a how-to on how the project was designed per WP:NOTHOWTO, along with personal reflection on design philosophy per WP:NOTESSAY. This, along with the "our downloads, "our Google group", etc. in the EL section, gives a strongly WP:COI feel of a project site masquerading as an article per WP:NOTWEBSPACE. Empty Buffer (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The developers of this software have been spamming every forum trying to push their product. There is no credibility here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.87.9 (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The two comments on the article's talk page protesting against the deletion are both suspected sockpuppets of the creator, I have started an SPI.Acather96 (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2010 (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.