Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SOQL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Article has no context.--cj | talk 17:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SOQL

SOQL (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is just an ad, but a speedy delete tag had been removed, and Gwernol (the user who took off the tag) said, "Its not a G11 candidate, but an AfD might be appropriate." ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 15:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep I think this is reasonable, as being a description of an item of software currently available. Almost incomprehensible to the computer-illiterate, but reasonable nonetheless.--Anthony.bradbury 15:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless expanded as it presently stands, nothing to indicate it's not a single company's internal-use-only software. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per Anthony.bradbury. Epbr123 21:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no context, it's not encyclopedic, and I don't see an obvious way that it will improve and incorporate outside sources. Adm58 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It's like an ad, and not written for an encyclopedia. — Wenli 00:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no context or evidence of notability given. Too technical and written in second person. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge what little useful info there is into the main Salesforce article. Realkyhick 05:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:SPAM--Greatestrowerever 11:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, probably on the less notable side. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tim.bounceback (talk • contribs) 12:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
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.