Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GemFireEDF


 * 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. No reliable sources. I will userfy on request if somebody wishes to work on finding sources.  SilkTork  *YES! 21:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

GemFireEDF

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. No non-trivial coverage found ... only sources found in Yahoo and Google appear to be press releases. Blueboy96 20:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one that created the article. It's largely based off of GemStone's technical white paper. This paper has some great information on distributed caching in general that I believe adds to the value of wikipedia. It gives an example of a distributed caching solution that fixes the scalability issues most IT architectures have, and how exactly that solution goes about solving them. In my searches on wikipedia I couldn't find any other documents that even attempted providing coverage of this area like mine does. I know there isn't really any unbiased information on the web to counteract the two references found within the document, but that's just the nature of this industry. Along those lines, I will attempt to find some objective links I can throw under an external links header. If there is certain language you'd like me to remove, please let me know. I would really appreciate it if this document was allowed to stand. Thank you for your consideration.
 * I tend to be HIGHLY skeptical of using white papers as sources unless they are originating from a source that has a very strong reputation for putting out quality work. Cazort (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the whitepaper wasn't being used as a source. It was copied verbatim into the article.  It was removed as copyright violation multiple times with the author putting it back each time.  He is curtrently blocked for repeated violation of copyright policy. -- Whpq (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I threw in all of GemFire's competitors at the bottom. Also note that I used microsoft/windows entry on wikipedia as a guide for writing this. plamb85 —Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete I found a lot of "sources": but as far as I've read, ALL of it originates from press releases or other material originating from the company.  Google scholar turns up some stuff:  but similarly, it's mostly from the company (I don't think a white paper qualifies as a reliable source for establishing notability, such things are only really good for establishing what the producer of the white paper is claiming).  Cazort (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable software. No third-party sources are given to establish notability.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - yet more non-notable, non-consumer software. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2009 (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.