Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C-treeACE


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

C-treeACE

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I find virtually no applicable coverage in independent sources meeting WP:N. Largoplazo (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I disagree. Based upon WP:N, this page should not be deleted. The list of sources is sound, especially because they are strong in the software and technology sectors. Also, this company has been around for more than 35 years. TexasTerror (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * c-treeACE (aka c-tree Plus until the late 2000s) has been around for more than 30 years. It is one of the oldest database technologies on the market, and it is used by Verizon, Visa, UPS and other well-known companies. This is not a page that should be deleted. BubbaBexley (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete First, I have removed the sockpuppeters (now both blocked) votes/comments per sock strike. Now, to the AfD. Very borderline case which relies too much on primary sources. Most of the things in the article and in my search were primary & press release sources or failed WP:SIGCOV. The only one that may contribute to the notability is: this one http://www.drdobbs.com/database/faircom-c-treeace-aims-to-bridge-both-sq/240134948. There is another one https://sdtimes.com/faircoms-newest-c-treeace-bridges-sql-nosql-worlds/ but it seems it is a promo-ish reference at best which again focuses on the one who made it. Not enough to pass GNG itself. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I searched AfD and found secondary sources to add to article and seem to be WP:N; one was "Handbook of Research on Cloud and Fog Computing Infrastructures for Data Science" and "Privacy and Security Policies in Big Data" AfD could use better sources like these so I'll add these. Insight890 (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * — Insight890 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment The sources may qualify as reliable sources, but these are just mentions in lists, not significant coverage as is called for to demonstrate notability. Largoplazo (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The sources Insight890 posted are both passing mentions and not WP:SIGCOV so they do not count towards notability. Also seeing how this user has only edits per this article alone, I would not be surprised if he/she is another sock lurking. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looking over the sources in the article, they're all either really about FairCom, routine business/PR annoucements, or just directory-style listings in various NoSQL articles.  My own searching didn't find anything better.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:SIGCOV (which requrires coverage to be in-depth, i.e no passing mentions), WP:NCORP.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2018 (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.