Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constant Data Base

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 redirect to cdb. I saw nothing I could merge that wasn't already there. Chick Bowen 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constant Data Base (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

• Delete - Article is not notable, discusses a commonly implemented data structure. Would be better as a section in an article about programming theory or database theory. The largest part of the article is about Dan Bernstein's implementation of a CDB, in which case, it may be relevant to discuss CDBs there as well. A seperate article with little information is pointless. As such, this article does not contain enough information to establish notability per WP:Notability. --nenolod File:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to cdb per Dhartung. (updated concept) --nenolod (talk) (edits) 08:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that I created a stub for this subject as cdb, which was expanded significantly by an anon; it may as well be considered part of this nomination. John Vandenberg 08:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The stub is not interesting to me at this time. I am against nominating the stub as part of this. --nenolod File:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this library/database is used in a number of very notable pieces of software. John Vandenberg 08:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a specific database or library, but instead a design paradigm. This should be a section in an article about database design. I have yet to determine a good candidate for a merge, however. --nenolod File:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to cdb. There is really no other notable implementation (no, this isn't a "commonly implemented data structure", either). --Dhartung | Talk 10:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair solution. I think this is what should happen. --nenolod (talk) (edits) 22:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question/Comment. Why does the cdb article also have an AfD banner that redirects to this AfD? Is cdb also coming up for deletion? Or was the idea simply to alert users that the little-sister-article was up for deletion? Is the proposal to delete both sisters? Or was it supposed to be a Merger banner? Initially I thought it rather startling that we would propose merging to an article that was also up for AfD. I also wonder which article "name" is more appropriate to be the base title for the Wikipedia - cdb or Constant Data Base ... or perhaps Constant database seeing as database is (or should be) the real name. Data bank is sometimes used as an alternative for database, but I seldom or never see "data base" used in proper authoritative sources. Bottom line: Something needs to be merged, redirected, and/or renamed, but to where? --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 12:43, 29 June 2007 (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.