Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Associative model of data (2nd nomination)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  12:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Associative model of data
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

As someone who understands database theory and data models, I concur that this article is both:
 * Misinformed. It makes various incorrect claims about the relational data model.
 * An advertisement for a book. It's clear the author is trying to persuade readers to read his work.

In addition to being misinformed, the research discussed on this page is not notable. These ideas have seen no adoption or proliferation outside the author's own book. So I suggest this page be deleted. (-Nick) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.69.172 (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator. Above text is copied from article talk page.  I have no opinion of my own at this time.  --Finngall talk  14:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete COI page created in 2005 and not substantially improved since then, about a topic that has not had significant uptake beyond the writings of its inventor. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article gathered 8 GScol hits. The abstract of the article begins "Lazy Software has created the Associative Model of Data,™ the first entirely new database architecture since the advent of the Internet. Its product Sentences™ is a multi-user, web-enabled database management system written in Java, and is the first commercial implementation of the Associative Model. Using Sentences, customers can design and develop sophisticated database applications more quickly and with less technical know-how than has previously been possible." Sadly, the journal that gem was published in, The Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, is no longer with us, folding after just 11 years. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Last night, I saw a pdf copy of the book by Simon Williams. Some of the text in this article is a clear copyright breach, and is just copied from that. Then confusion has been added to it. But the book is not that great, and I will mention issues below. Ode+Joy (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article was clearly written as promotional, either promoting the author's book or the author's ideas. However, it is not entirely true that the idea has seen no adoption by others.  Two sources not authored by Williams are listed in the external links section.  The Han paper is a masters degree dissertation and therefore not considered peer reviewed.  The Homan and Kovacs paper was published in the journal Issues in Information Systems. SpinningSpark 22:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. The initial statement by the IP that the articles "makes various incorrect claims about the relational data model" is too mild. I have the feeling the author of this article received their PhD in database analysis at the Trump University, but I can not officially confirm that, not being able to contact the university right now. Ode+Joy (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I have now looked through a pdf copy of the book by Simon Williams. It has some consistent history of the subject (obtained from obvious text books) but the basic claims are a rehash of the Entity–relationship model. This further confirms my delete vote. Given that the noteworthy page Entity–relationship model is in desperate need of help itself, no point in spending multiple users' efforts talking about this page. Just delete forever and be done. Ode+Joy (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete although not as emphatic as Ode+Joy perhaps, since there might be some contribution from the sources at the intersection of entity-relationship model and a real database management system implementation. Maybe put a sentence or two in the ER model article about this terminology at best. W Nowicki (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The pdf I saw was self published by Lazy Software. I looked on Amazon and not clear who the publisher is. If you somehow get the real book and want to add a few paragraphs please do, but it can not be done in a sentence or two. The long and short of it is that this is an exhumation of the CODASYL model painted with an ER surface. I am pretty sure no single implementation of this is used in any Fortune 2000 company. If there is something to be fixed, it is the page for CODASYL model itself. It is pretty weak. Ode+Joy (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Keep : - But should probably be moved to where hits are more prevalant .  I am assuming Associative Data Model and Associative Model of Data.  If there are sourcable reasons why the thing is rubbish or a variant of whatever then have them in the article.  But inappropriate to removed completely. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I doubt that a capitalised title is appropriate here. It is not for others to provide sources that this is rubbish, it is for those who want to keep it (ie, only you so far) to provide sources showing notability which so far, is very weak. SpinningSpark 18:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree its weak. I've been tracking this for some time, to a degree waiting to get space to make a better, fuller, explanation and source analysis.  But time seems short for me and its appropriate for me to make my comments known.  On the external links of the article (Minghui, 2001) uses the term Associate Data Model and (Homan, Kovacs, 2009) use the term Associate Database Model in their titles.  Its for a clerker to analyse the situation. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said above, the Minghui Han paper is a masters thesis and thus not considered peer reviewed. SpinningSpark</b> 21:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As you are aware I am in overload and I apologise for not noticing your earlier comment on (Minghui, 2001). I did pcik it up as already on the article.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed !vote for present until I re-assess, if I bother to. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.