Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of object-relational mapping software

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 keep. John254 01:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of object-relational mapping software[edit]

Article fails WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, WP:SPAM Hu12 (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the list mixes together traditional O-R mapping software with convenience libraries for object oriented languages (e.g. DTL or SOCI for C++). Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – There is no need to remove this article. We have lists of operating systems, lists of programming languages (no, that’s not a typo), lists of actors, and other lists and lists of lists. This is also a highly ranked page at Google, which while not showing notability, shows that it is popularly linked to and well-regarded. In fact, when I was looking for OR software just now myself, it was the very first hit. If this list is fit for deletion, then there are a great many lists on WP which should be deleted for the same reasons listed in the rationale for this AfD, if those are the criteria for lists (very few, if any lists would pass all of those criteria). —Michael B. Trausch • Talk to me 17:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's my opinion that all list entries in a list article should be internal links, thereby living or dying by their own notability. It's certainly true that this list has become a spam magnet, yet the list itself is not doing the spamming. It's a valid topic for a list. I would say prune the external and red links to clean it up, but that's just me. What the list really needs is a dedicated maintainer or two. But in the meantime, it's probably preventing a lot of spam from reaching the main article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the reasons posed by nom do not apply, as the list meets all 3 of the main purposes of lists: valuable information source, navigation (the list provides blue-links), and development (the list has redlinks). The Transhumanist 19:24, 12 February 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.