Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pervasive PSQL


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Pervasive PSQL

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

SPAM, but too old for speedy, Product not really notable and article is excessivly promoting with no really acceptable old version to revert to TurningWork (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * delete. reads like an advert, with no mention of why its notable. untwirl (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Deelte - Press releases abound. Independent coverage, no so much.  There is this Eweek article but it reads like a re-hashed press release.  There is this very very short article.  And this brief mention in the Register.  Not enough to clear the notability bar for me.-- Whpq (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Keep - Have had to interact with this product and, even though it's horrible, as the name suggests it seems to be built into all sorts of weird systems. Should ideally be re-written but by someone far more NPOV than me...!  A u l a T P N 13:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem I see with that suggestion is the lack of reliable third-party sources that Whpq (talk mentioned. It's hard to see how a rewrite that complies with WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable Sources could be much more than a bare statement of it's existance. TurningWork (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - reliability is going to be the problem. I suspect that all sources will be highly polarised one way or the other. However I worry that deleting it will get us dragged into a "it's notable enough - deleting the article is blatant POV pushing" swamp - sadly I've experienced it before and I don't think it's un-notable enough to justify deletion. Perhaps the answer is to reduce the article to a stub? A bare statement of its existence as you put it?  A u l a T P N 20:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it gets deleted and reappears, then it can be dealt with when that happens. I would not advocate keeping something that is borderline just because somebody might complain about it.  The article is very spammy, and I did expend some effort in finding sources as there appeared to be a possibility that it could meet notability.  But in the end, I really found very little in the way of reliable sources.  So what we have is a spammy article with little being written about it.  Your own experiene with it is that it's not a good product and that might explain why there is so little coverage.  I don't really see a good keep rationale.  If somebody can turn up more substantial sourcing than what I was able to come up with, then I am willig to change my mind. -- Whpq (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:50, 24 April 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.