Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimer SQL


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  11:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Mimer SQL

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Cannot find any independent reliable sources that have significant coverage. Lots of one-off mentions in books and one short article on macworld.com. -- intgr [talk] 09:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I found database entries for few books/short publications about Mimer. I don´t have access to these, so can´t judge their quality (or independence):, , , Pavlor (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 13:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Notable. The coverage in books and articles satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, the article makes insufficient claim of notability, the refs in the article are primary 404s, the refs supplied above are behind a paywall. Szzuk (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Struck own vote per comment below. Szzuk (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Comment, Notable for IANA registered port 1360 to be found in the /etc/services file of a significant number of *NIX computers.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: one extra relist to see if we can save this from NC. Grateful for views on improved notability through editing
 * Strong keep Comment, article has been improved since original listing, lede has additional notbability claims and should not be be modified to simply amplify the amplify the claims, not all citations are primary and any 404's have been resolved via wayback, the comment about references being behind a paywall is minorly relevant and references behind a paywall are acceptable, WP:PAYWALL. The software is still having new being developed after 30 years which is somewhat impressive.  To prevent any doubt I am confident to take this to WP:DRV if necessary and should that fail would request draftification for improvement.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 15:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to SQL. The article looks like a cross between an advert and in-universe software development that has minimal encyclopedic value. Now I've thought about it again a merge/redirect to SQL wouldn't be a terrible idea, it is already mentioned there so I've struck my delete vote. Szzuk (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, Oppose Merge (to SQL).  See primarily reasons given in comments above (I've struck the keeps to comments to ensure not double voting).  An in-universe (fictional) software development this is certainly not.  I cannot see any significant merge to the high-importance SQL article that would not disrupt the latter, we must also remember Mimer SQL is a product and a company not a language (though it does have dialects) which might mean a forced fit unless say all products such as SQL-Server were treated similarly.  Such a merge also would likely lead to a non-notability claim and removal of Miner-SQL from that article, so merge will be akin to a medium term delete.  Quite frankly I can't plausibly see anything arising to make me change my position significantly so I think unfortunately this will have to head to a non-consensual close.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment For the record, I'm also against merging this to SQL &mdash; that article should be about the language, and perhaps discussing dialects to some extent, but not about database management systems.
 * Without seeing the sources listed by, it's difficult to tell how substantial the coverage is. For instance, the first one is listed as a "book", but then has just 17 pages. So it's most likely a thesis rather than book. Those are considered reliable if they have appeared in an established peer-reviewed journal, which does not appear to be the case. And while it's possible they satisfy the letter of the notability guideline, I'd argue that if they're not accessible to current Wikipedia contributors, they don't satisfy the spirit, which is bringing a verifiable article to Wikipedia.
 * Also three out of four of those are written in 1984-1988 about the "MIMER database management system" developed at unversities. I also cannot find any reliable sources linking the "MIMER database management system" and the commercial "Mimer SQL" product, so if anything, this article should be about the university version.
 * As for the current state of the article, I see many primarily primary sources from mimer.com, then the short MacWorld/PCWorld article I mentioned, then an advertorial at CIOReview.com with Mimer CEO (they specialise in those), and two theses published by university press and not peer-reviewed journals. Really nothing that unambiguously passes the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:RS. So I stand by my nomination for now. -- intgr [talk] 18:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I rather hoped someone else would add to that last comment first but no-one has. I've worked the Mimer SQL pages a bit more.  WP:GNG and WP:RS are guidelines, but very good guidelines.  WP:COMMONSENSE is saying with the wide range of references it is reasonable to ask 'What is Mimer SQL?' especially if some system was dumped in my lap as an IT person .. and I'd hope Wikipedia would give me some kind of clue.  I am always concerned about being restrictions from developing content ... I appreciate the good faith suggestion Sticking to the 'University version'  is in good faith but the content restriction means both the ongoing story cannot be explained well and the set of viable references reduces and then should there be a separate article for the commercial version and then should it be merged ... indeed the restriction would exclude an International Journal of Computer Science and Technology reference from June 2012 that from a journal that at least self claims to be peer reviewed.  There is also the possibility argument the presence of Mimer on the /etc/services file of some Linux distributions also technically satisfies WP:GNG and WP:RS but even I have a life rather than having the scrutinisers going through that argument ... apart from that totally relying on it might set a bad precedent.  Looks like a close of 'No Concensus' here would stop contributors especially me wasting effort.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:15, 25 April 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.