Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aqua Data Studio


 * 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. The keep rationales are both unconvincing and articles need to have significant coverage in reliable sources, so yes, the extent to which the sources discuss the subject is important. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Aqua Data Studio

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. Article is about a software suite, but does not list any reliable sources. I can't find any sources beyond press releases and self-published material. TN X Man 11:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable. A reference has been added, but it falls into the category of promotional press release. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   prattle 14:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Catfish Jump and the soapdish and nom. Refence is non-reliable. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Catfish Jump???? lol... Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't multi-task. *face palm* -DJSasso (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The ample Google News results are mostly just announcing it exist and quoting from their press release, but these are in major computer news sources. They wouldn't bother doing that if the software wasn't notable.  Google Book search shows many places mentioning it, and giving links to it, based on the quality of the software, and the fact that it is free.  I'll add a few quotes into the article from published sources.   D r e a m Focus  04:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete until legitimate sourcing clearly meeting WP:RS is provided. Press releases, raw search results and mentions in non-notable books do not establish notability. Flowanda | Talk 10:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

absence of references and proper citations have been addressed. There are citations in a proper format now.
 * Relisting comment. I had originally closed this as "delete" but per request on my talk page I'm relisting this so that sources added to the article but not mentioned in the AFD can be considered. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ron, by "sources added to the article" do you mean the "further reading" section? Because to me, that doesn't seem to address the notability argument for deletion in any way.  In fact, this seems like such a clear "delete" outcome that I don't understand why you've relisted it, unless to raise false hopes.  Am I missing something?— S Marshall  T/C 12:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with S Marshall here. Doesnt change my position at all. -DJSasso (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * KeepIssues brought to attention in the earlier stages of this discussion such as

The discussion has shifted towards reliability of sources. According to the WP:RS Wikipedia guideline the article “should be based on reliable, published sources”. Questionable sources are described as having “poor reputation” or “self-published”. The sources of references on this article are from books published by O'Reilly Media, Springer Science+Business Media, SAMS Publishing. Neither of them can be described as of poor reputation or self-published. All of them are well known, independent international publishers. (Please refer to the corresponding Wikipedia articles dedicated to these publishers ). So what is the ground for saying the referenced books are “non-notable”? On contrary they are notable because published by notable agencies. On my opinion the article should stay because it complies with the Wikipedia policies in full. --71.172.113.130 (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Analysis of sources is almost always what AfD is about. In fact, when you're building an encyclopaedia most of the work boils down to careful analysis of sources.  In this case, the sources are admitted to be by and large independent, reputable, reliable sources.  What's in question is the extent to which they talk about Aqua Data Studio.— S Marshall  T/C 00:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The references for Aqua Data Studio go further then many other Wikipedia article references. It would be interesting to know to what "extent" is required by a reference to discuss a subject before it is qualified. The current argument for deletion is not quantifiable, and prevents anyone from enhancing the article on the subject to get it approved to Keep.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.166.184 (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * — 71.204.166.184 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In this particular case the sources speak about Aqua Data Studio in the same way they speak about other database tools. Check some of them : SQLPro SQL Client, TOAD (software), DatabaseSpy, DbForge Studio for MySQL, Database Deployment Manager, DatabaseSpy. All of them and many other are similar Wikipedia articles about very similar data base tools. Shall we delete all of them or shall we follow the Wikipedia policy and keep those articles in compliance? We cannot judge the way or extent the _sources_ speaks about subjects. We can only judge the way _the article_ speaks about the subject. And the article must be based on reliable sources, that directly support the facts stated in this article. It this case the sources say that the subject of this article is a database tool with this specific set of functions, no more, no less. And the article says the same thing. There is no contradiction with the sources and this and only this fact is required by the policy. --71.172.113.130 (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Which Wikipedia policy would you apply for measuring the extent a source talks about a subject?
 * Delete per the lack of reliable sources. A Google News Archive search returns press releases and promotional content but no reliable sources. I have reviewed the sources in the article and do not believe they establish notability. Cunard (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2010 (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.