Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LeanXcale database


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

LeanXcale database

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Technically about the product and not the identically named company that makes it, so taking it here rather than nominating for A7. Not really much to say here: the sourcing that exists is run of the mill coverage that confirms its existence but not much more. You have a Forbes contributor piece that turns up and mentions it, but for those unfamiliar with Forbes contributors, they are not actually on the staff and are independent from editorial oversight, which means that we typically don't count such pieces towards meeting the general guideline in WP:N. Otherwise, this is a pretty boring database. The article reads a bit like a brochure too, but not enough for G11, so the concerns with promotionalism also weigh on our considerations for deletion per WP:NOT. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following article for deletion: the parent company that I discovered after making the nomination. All of the reasons above apply to it as well: TonyBallioni (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The above review is totally biased for an unknown reason. Only refers to the mention from Forbes and questions its independence. But it does not mention that LeanXcale is a multi-award company for its database product. The awards have been given by very different independent organizations with a very high reputation in the startup world: EIT Digital and Red Herring. The database has also been included in a market analyst report, total data from 451 research one of the main market analysts on the database arena together with Gartner and Forrester. The database has also been included in the main database ranking, dbengines.com. +	I am also nominating the following article for deletion: the parent company that I discovered after making the nomination. All of the reasons above apply to it as well: −	What is more LeanXcale is one of the few databases based on a granted patent that demonstrates its novelty. +	−	More validation also comes from the startup world. First, one of the most important European startup accelerators, EIT Digital, has coached LeanXcale during 2016. Second, Bullnet Capital has invested in the company due to the high novelty of the database. +	TonyBallioni (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC) −	LeanXcale database is simply quite notable by all standards. −	Now, I do not understand why a reviewer makes "subjective" insulting comments towards our database telling that is "pretty boring". LeanXcale is the only database able to scale to millions of transactions per second. I have been professor and researcher in this area for over 20 years. I am one of the most relevant researchers in the area of scalable databases with papers published at the top conferences such as ACM SIGMOD and the top journals such as ACM Transactions on Database Systems, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, etc. I have over 2500 citations from my papers. What is the authority of the reviewer to tell that LeanXcale database is pretty boring? −	Talking about promotionalism, it is stated that it looks like a brochure. Really? The article simply discusses technical features. Just compare it with any other of other operational databases such as Clustrix. What is the difference? −	Ricardojimenezperis (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2017 (CET)
 * , I only mentioned Forbes because it was the only thing resembling a reliable source that came up. It isn't because it came from a contributor and not the magazine staff. I didn't think to mention the awards when I made the nomination because they didn't show up in sourcing, but sure, since you mention them I'll go into further analysis: this is a startup. All startups get awards, and the ones that this company has received don't confer notability.Re: receiving funding. That isn't a measure of notability.Again, see it being a startup: receiving funding is something most early stage startups that don't fail immediately receive (otherwise they wouldn't be around to write their own Wikipedia article). The question we need to answer is whether or not this company has received in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Per WP:SPIP and WP:CORPDEPTH these sources must not serve the purpose of promoting your firm or be standard coverage any business would expect to receive simply by existing.As for my bias: I have no bias against your company, I don't really care about it to be honest. What I do care about is ensuring that advertisements for run of the mill products aren't allowed in Wikipedia: as the person who has nominated your company and product for deletion, the community expects that I lay out a case for deletion otherwise I would be wasting their time, which is why the statements here are so negative: I have to point out in my statement why I believe these articles should be excluded from Wikipedia. Its no reflection on your work or the usefulness of the product. Just a reflection of my views as to whether it meets out guidelines and policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni is not true that all startups receive awards. Just below 1% receive awards. You also ignore the mention from 451 Research in their Total Data market analysis report. That is the most reliable source you have and ignores it. Also the fact that it appears in dbengines.com ranking. You also ignore to have a granted patent that most of the companies appearing do not have that is a process that takes several years and it is the only way to demonstrate the "innovative" character. Anyway, it seems that I have a conflict of interest due to I am founder and CEO of the company so I stop my discussion. But it is obvious that all database pages were written by someone asked by the company to do the writing and what contents to put there. Just look at the luxury of details on the funding rounds, who founded and so on, that only the founders and investors actually know. It is just not credible that someone out there without a relation to the company decided to write such an article and find out all that information. Ricardojimenezperis (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2017 (CET)


 * Delete No claim of notability; the awards mentioned are trade-press coverage and I don't believe that "Just below 1% receive awards" is true in a meaningful way. The articles are poorly referenced and promotionally toned, the author has a CoI, and I don't see significant coverage.  Power~enwiki (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment- Since, the nominator is questioning the reliability of Forbes article. I just want to bring this old AfD in light, Articles for deletion/Algolia. Forbes article was deemed WP:RS, even though the contributor is not in the staff list. So I don't think it's fair to dismiss Forbes article unless the coverage is calculated to be just a passing mention. Hitro   talk  20:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , AfDs go either way on that. Some do count those, others don't. The Forbes contributors section is generally the equivalent of an uncurated blog post on the Forbes website, with little editorial oversight. The key for something being an RS for purposes of notability is generally the degree of independence from the subject and the degree of journalistic integrity and editorial oversight. The Forbes contributor posts tend to not have the latter, and also often aren't intellectually independent of the subject. I see you made the same arguments two years ago! The trend recently from what I can tell is to be a bit more strict on it.TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete a proprietary database / private company with no indications of notability or importance. Significant RS coverage not found. Wikipedia is not a product brochure or an investor prospectus. This content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2017 (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.