Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerospike database


 * 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   no consensus. Nakon 04:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Aerospike database

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are not sufficient sources to satisfy any relevant notability criteria. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 21:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 21:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete - Inadequate evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 00:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep and improve - I had no difficulty finding "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" of the Aerospike database, per WP:GNG - starting with 8 of the 10 references already in the article, which point to reliable third party sources. Following are links to some relevant coverage I found in the first few pages of a google search:           . This short list includes major publications such as The Register, GigaOM, Information Week, InfoWorld and Forbes. Beyond this, I found coverage of the Aerospike database (also under its earlier name, "Citrusleaf") in at least 60 different books and scholarly articles, including the proceedings of several major international conferences. So, yea, there are sufficient sources to satisfy the notability criteria. This article doesn't meet the criteria for deletion under WP:DEL-REASON, and it would save time if  would withdraw the nomination for deletion. Cinteotl (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (Note: upon rereading the rules for withdrawal, I see that it might not be appropriate in this case, since another editor has added substantive comments.) Edited 11:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 10:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, I've checked one of the sources found by Cinteotl, it was okay, and assuming that about a dozen other links are also okay the topic is notable. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2015 (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.