Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pervasive Data Integrator


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Pervasive Data Integrator

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested proposed deletion. This is a promotional article about a non-notable, non-consumer software product.

Essentially, this article is just a features list --- a mere sales brochure. It reads like unambiguous advertising, extolling the product's virtues: The only reference given in the article is to a press release, a routine announcement of an acquisition, no substantive coverage; the other references are to internal sites. Google News Archives seems to yield mostly press releases announcing new versions and casual mentions that the product was used. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * can automate the integration of data movement tasks on an event-driven, real-time, or regularly scheduled basis....
 * extracts, aggregates, replicates, transforms and loads data from disparate sources, including between very old legacy and mainframe data and applications and new systems....
 * has a very wide range of connectivity...
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I think I've made this sort of comment before, but anyway. This class of software is limited, and consists of big expensive products used by big corporations. This, to my mind, gives them some kind of de facto notability. These products do not come and go every day. Having an article on each one is potentially very useful for comparisons. I don't really agree with your characterisation of "unambiguous advertising". Of the three statements you cite, only the phrase "very wide range" strikes me as advertisational. The rest is information. For example, "on an event-driven, real-time, or regularly scheduled basis" describes what would be the three main triggering modes. (Disclosure/explanation: I used to work for Sunopsis, before it was acquired by Oracle. I don't know anything about Pervasive Data Integrator. I assume I wrote the stub when I was researching these products and trying to find out what Sunopsis actually did...) Stevage 04:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree a bit with your characterization: This class of software is limited, and consists of big expensive products used by big corporations. But to me, these factors mean that it's a long shot that anything is going to appear in a useful, independent source about the software.  And, any independent reviews are moreover going to be circulated among a tiny group of people with a professional interest in this kind of package.  That kind of coverage, even if it exists, does not translate into notability.  The more expensive, technical, or exclusive it is, the less likely it can achieve notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this class of software will not be covered. There are specialist journals covering enterprise level software.  Coverage in such places would establish notability.  I don't know if that is the case here as I've not yet looked. -- Whpq (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, while I was at Sunopsis, a report from Gartner Consulting came out, comparing half a dozen or so of these products. Definitely a useful, independent source. Only problem: you had to pay to read it. A lot, from memory. Here's an interesting blog post, btw. Stevage 05:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gartner has come up before. That they're reliable is pretty much a given.  But ultimately they're a consulting firm; their clients are their real editors.  And their actual reports have less circulation than a hometown newspaper.  Being covered in a Gartner product comparison does not equal notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I would not use just eh fact of coverage in Gartner as an indicator of notability as they will report on any company one of their clients makes a query about. -- Whpq (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Tons of press releases. I found  and,  but this does not represent sufficient depth of coverage to establish notability for me. -- Whpq (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

ugh, enterprise all the consultants I drink beer with know if a product puts the word "enterprise" in the literature it is a codeword for SUCK. this type of software has a limited audience - limited audience means it is not an encyclopedic subject matter. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Comments: The above discussion seems to relate to novelty not notability. If I harvest 100 carrots and find one that has grown two roots that look like a pair of legs, that may be novel and when I was a kid that was exciting to find but no wire service ever picked up the story to make it notable. However, the other comment made above motivates my interest in defining something called "obscure but notable." The wikipedia criteria concern the geograhy being more than local and coverage depth being sufficient to write a decent article. There is no criteria for absolute popularity AFAIK. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Popularity" is not needed; "notability" is the local jargon, but especially for commercial businesses and products, where seeking to use Wikipedia for free publicity is a legitimate concern, something closer to "historical significance" strikes me as what we should aim for.  What I found searching for this product was mostly press releases, generally circulated without comment.  The notice and recorded interest of other people independent of the business is what would tip the scales: somebody else needs to have taken an interest in their crowing.  This, I did not find. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are many topics that have a limited audience that are perfectly fine topics for Wikipedia. A broad audience is not an inclusion criterion, and a limited audience is not an exclusion criterion. -- Whpq (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * in a long term view, nobody will care that wikipedia documented Elliptic curve cryptography but not Pervasive Data Integrator. one is important, this is not. this used to matter.  that every product on the market is being written about, regardless of actual significance, is something wikipedia is failing to control.  the standard now seems to be if two sentences appear in two magazines then VfD will keep the article.  that criteria is crap and needs to end. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Perhaps so, but you will note that I did find a couple of sentences in a couple of magazines and find it insufficient to justify including this topic. -- Whpq (talk) 21:49, 10 November 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.