Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBM PureQuery


 * 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 merge to IBM DB2. Selective merge, per 's guidance. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

IBM PureQuery

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Dialectric with the following rationale "google books search shows numerous mentions. redirect may be in order, but that can be discussed without a prod". I am not averse to a redirect (through to where, I am not sure) but as a stand-alone article this does not seem to pass. The references do not pass muster: yes, there are mentions in books, but they are mostly in passing. The software does have a section devoted to it in several books, through rather then any analysis of significance those sections seem to be how-to-use manauls, technical and going on for a page or so. There is no single work on this topic, and few short mentions in niche textbooks don't seem to qualify for NSOFTWARE "It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews". Nothing I can find supports this passing that or WP:N. Seems like software-spam, particularly considering the language (this has been tagged as an advert for 5+ years now...). I think IBM has enough adevertising budget it doesn't need us to help them - we are not the directory of software (WP:NOTDIRECTORY). PS. Creator, of course, was a WP:SPA... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with nom. Redirect to what, though? FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  13:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 12:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge selectively to IBM DB2. There is an entire book on this topic: Getting Started with pureQuery. I consider the book reliable in the sense that there was editorial review and it is likely authoritative, but is not independent of IBM. I too was unable to find multiple independent reliable sources for this product beyond purely instructional material, hence it doesn't seem meet notability guidelines. But the brief third party mentions and the first chapter of this book, which has some history of the product, its context and purpose, are sufficient to add or merge basic facts about the product into another article. In my opinion, probably the best target is a few sentences in the section IBM DB2, as this query language is closely aligned with IBM's database product. --Mark viking (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect as there seems to be enough to suggest it can be reworked perhaps or something similar, nothing currently formed to suggest it can be a separate article at this time though. SwisterTwister   talk  02:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Selective Merge to IBM DB2 § Technical information, per the advice of above. North America1000 16:58, 9 June 2016 (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.