Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redis (dbms)


 * 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The result was   keep, as nominator has withdrawn. I note that a lot of the "keep" arguments are extremely weak and indeed might have backfired given the canvassing. Nonetheless, consensus, as determined by policy-based arguments among established editors, is to keep the article at this point. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Redis (dbms)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unable to verify notability in any reliable sources. -- samj in out 10:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. In addition to notability issues, this is unambiguous advertising, containing unreferenced crowing about how much faster this product is: among the fastest structured storage systems available, being able to process 100,000 queries per second per core in entry level hardware. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to fix that section. Swillison (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. This pretty new software (ver 1.0 in March 2009), but there are already two conference RubyConf 2009 NoSQL Berlin presentations by two different guys that that are not among the developers of this software. That satisfies WP:GNG. Pcap ping  01:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: No it doesn't, and even if it did both conferences are of questionable notability. -- samj in out 04:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right to some extent; those conferences are somewhat niche, although the NoSQL conference is for instance announced in h-online, which is part of Heise Media (German version). The Redis presentation is discussed in the H-online/heise.de conference coverage in those links, so that's more independent coverage. Changing !vote to weak keep though. Pcap ping  12:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There was another talk from a secondary source at NoSQL East 2009. Can't give a direct link due to the horrible web 2.0 site. A summary of the talk. Pcap ping  12:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is quickly emerging as one of the most interesting of the new batch of "NoSQL" projects. Although young, the project is developing rapidly and has already attracted commercial sponsorship: http://code.google.com/p/redis/wiki/SponsorshipHistory It has been used in production by high profile sites such as GitHub, Engine Yard and guardian.co.uk. It has also attracted a significant developer community, as can be seen from the large number of client libraries written for it in a number of different languages. If this does get deleted, it will inevitably need to be re-added in a few months time as the profile of the project grows. Swillison (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Redis seems to be being mentioned more and more often from what I've seen, and is steadily growing in usage (once again, from what I've seen, I have no relation to Redis). Ryan McCue (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Redis used in Mozilla Bespin. The article has been directly useful to me outside of this project. JoeWalker (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Redis author is the same guy of Idle_scan and hping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.145.35.77 (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Redis is pioneering the space of super fast, in-memory data structure services... irreplaceable for doing real-time data analysis. That's my opinion as a user who has no other affiliation with the project. Spf2 (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment None of the "keep" votes above address the fact that Wikipedia's notability guidelines for software have not been met (e.g. significant coverage in multiple reliable general interest, independent secondary sources, recognized awards, significant product reviews, etc.) -- samj in out 13:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This should qualify as a valid mention: Linux Journal Article about Redis: [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antirez (talk • contribs) 13:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Pcap ping  14:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This is a good start. -- samj in out 15:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I've other references: Tim_Bray cited Redis in his blog: [], MySQL performance blog article about Redis: [], More than 1500 delicious bookmarks for the Redis home page: []. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antirez (talk • contribs) 14:11, 7 January 2010 )
 * None of these are reliable sources. -- samj in <sup style="color:green;">out 15:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is also discussed in another presentation by Billy Newport from QCon San Francisco 2009, which is a third separate conference. It's new, but it's receiving a lot of attention and it's definitely something of note in the software development field. My background: Chief Editor for InfoQ.com, an enterprise software development news website. -=Straxus=- (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: One decent reference has popped up (Linux Magazine) and there are a couple of other less reliable ones such as High Scalability, some blog posts and passing references. As most of the "keep" votes appear to be coming from Twitter it would be good to hear from some established editors as to whether the notability guidelines for software have now been met. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 15:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do no invoke that essay. It's a minority opinion, not a Wikipedia guideline! Pcap ping  17:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort" feels relevant at this point Swillison (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think Redis is notable and important — I've heard of it, and I'm interested in learning more about it. I know a lot about CouchDB, so it'd be interesting to see some objective information about Redis. avi4now (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - One the major key-value stores; part of an important development in database technology. Definitely notable. Tnm8 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Redis is great and as amazingly fast as it claims. I used it for a recent project.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.39.75 (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article in Linux Magazine confirms that coverage in reliable secondary sources does exist. A bit of research will undoubtedly turn up some more. 81.151.173.41 (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - A very new open source project, likely to become more relevant leader in quickly developing, and increasingly important field. The Ohloh https://www.ohloh.net/p/redis page indicates a "Large, active development team" over a short [|commit history]. Suggest removing possibly contentious performance claims and postponing deletion given this is an emergent topic and independent pages such as this are useful fora for gathering evidence against vested interests of large incumbent vendors -- User:psd  —Preceding undated comment added 11:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Withdraw: Ok the article's improved, advertising's been removed and it's been tagged appropriately. Furthermore, a bunch of people seem to care about it so it's unlikely to end up being wikicruft... as such I'm withdrawing my nomination and we'll see where it goes from here. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 18:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: BSD licensed free software (yes, I understand nom already withdrew) Samboy (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since the original nomination has been withdrawn, can we officially record the issue as closed for now, so the 'Candidate for Deletion' box can be removed? Tnm8 (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since there is still one delete vote besides that withdrawn by the nominator, an administrator will have to close it after a week passed since the nomination. Pcap ping  12:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep When I Google for the link http://code.google.com/p/redis/ I get 215,000 hits. No reason to doubt this software is notable.  I look through the results of a search for "code" "Google" and "Redis" and I find over a hundred thousand hits.  The one at Code Monkey seems notable.   D r e a m Focus  20:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong and obvious keep. This is getting crazy with this deletion mania! This article is well cited to numerous prominent sources, and is well written about a notable project.  LotLE × talk  21:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The article has been improved a good deal and yet there is still only one or two questionable references, hardly "well cited to numerous prominent sources". -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 00:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment No inline citations, and only two references. Perhaps this DBMS is a challenger for MySQL, but there is no way to tell from this article. Supporters should include at least three inline citations in the article, and not just mention them in this discussion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * AFD is not cleanup. 81.151.173.41 (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While AfD is not cleanup, an AfD may be an incentive for other editors to do a cleanup. This happens fairly often when the article is tagged for rescue, as this article was, but not always. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep.  More useful reviews; if this is really part of a NoSQL movement that article should be improved too.  Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2010 (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.