Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EXtremeDB


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

EXtremeDB

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is written in an advertising manner and all the sources listed are created by executives in the company. Some of the sources are broken links or spam. A google search reveals that there are no sources to back up the claims of notability. Mars2035 (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I am a user of this software and find the eXtremeDB article informative. I know the documentation well, so I can add some references. However, since you have initiated this effort to remove the article, I would appreciate your providing more information/guidance. First, please point me toward the Wikipedia page for a software product that you believe _is_ appropriately referenced, so that I can use that as a model.

Second, what links appearing on this page do you consider to be "spam"? That seems to be a subjective judgment on your part.

Third, please justify you statement that "a google search reveals that there are no sources to back up the claims of notability." When I google "extremeDB" and examine the first three pages of results, I find news articles from such publications as EE Times, Dr. Dobb's Journal and other journals reporting the news that the vendor has made to this product. Do you dispute that these are objective publications with high standing in the software industry, that these publications have no commercial interest in eXtremeDB, yet consider changes to the product to be newsworthy?

Your explanation of how your Google search justifies deletion of this article seems extremely cursory. Please explain what *exactly* you searched on and what you would have NEEDED to see in this Google search to "back up claims of notability". As stated above, my search on the product name confirms that well-regarded news media covering this product's industry believe that it is important enough to deserve news coverage. Also, a Google search on this product's *product category* (that is, a search on its software type, without using the product name) returns pages about eXtremeDB very high in the returned results. Is *that* what you are looking for in terms of confirmation from Google regarding the product's notability? I frankly don't see the connection -- but you are the one who has introduced google search results as somehow establishing notability. Welllstein (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you seem to be interested in improving this article, I will cancel my nomination for its deletion. My problem with the sources in this article are that they are all produced by people who work for the company. These do not qualify as reliable sources. The links that I called spam are the 6th and 7th on the list (you will see immediately when you look at them). I also have reservations about using Dr. Dobbs journal and EE Times as sources, because usually these sources are written as promotional articles by the companies that own the software. If you are looking for examples of software articles, you can see the page about BerkeleyDB or notability_(software). I hope you are successful in improving the article so that it complies with Wikipedia's policy.--Mars2035 (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for canceling your nomination to delete the page. However, I think your statement regarding EE Times and Dr. Dobb's Journal shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between news, on the one hand, and promotion, on the other. DDJ and EETimes are in fact professionally edited magazines; I think the editor of Dr. Dobb's Journal would take issue with your statement that his publication's content is "written as promotional articles by the companies that own the software." Yes, sometimes publications do use wording from organization's "official" statements (just as some political reportage sometimes use terminology set out by a politician or congressional report), and they do, indeed, publish articles by practitioners. But that does not take away from the fact that an independent "real" editor - that is, someone who does not have a stake in the article's subject -- has vetted and chosen that text for publication. That sort of gatekeeper function is getting rarer in the Web 2.0 world, but a good argument can be made that it is (or was) a better way of filtering information than the "everybody's an editor" model of Wikipedia.

You write, "The links that I called spam are the 6th and 7th on the list.(you will see immediately when you look at them)." Are you referring to articles from Dr. Dobb's and Embedded Systems Engineering? No, I do not see that they are spam. To me, they look very much like other technical articles, published in magazines that interest people in a particular field. Please back up your claim that they are spam. Where would such articles have to appear in order for you *not* to label them spam?

Finally, you still haven't told me -- what exactly were you looking for in your Google search that would have convinced you of the topic's notability? Is this a standard endorsed by Wikipedia, and if so, where in the Wikipedia rules and guidelines can I read about it? Welllstein (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment - One of the best written software ads I recall having seen on WP. Carrite (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Spam, spam, spam, spam.... 18:02, 20 August 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.