Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SAP HANA


 * 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 on whether this is or is not an appropriate subject for an article overall. However, there is clearly a consensus that the current article is inappropriate and useless, and may contain significant copyvio. Therefore, it will be stubbified. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

SAP HANA

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An unpromising start: "an in-memory data platform that is deploy-able as an on-premise appliance". I think that marketing-speak means some sort of software. Masses of refs but which of them are actually independent evidence of notability. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I speedied it earlier as copyvio; I suspect large chunks of what remain are copyvio; it's a mass of marketese. It could be stubified, but frankly, would you start with what's there now? Pinkbeast (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Absolutely full of copyvio. I've removed a lot, but I suspect much remains. More to the point, no reliable secondary sources that point to notability.-- K orr u ski Talk 11:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. There should not be notability issues here. As shown in the reference section, WSJ, Bloomberg, Forbes, Financial Times, many heavy-weight communication is going on for SAP HANA. 71.142.73.183 (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC) — 71.142.73.183 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This is a misleading claim. There is only one Bloomberg source given which makes NO mention of SAP HANA. The WSJ one  is behind a paywall so I haven't checked it, but seems to be about 'Skunkworks' so not sure what the relationship is there. The Forbes article  makes a passing mention of SAP HANA in the context of a bigger article about SAP, and the FT article  is by an employee of SAP, so is not in any way a reliable, independent source.-- K orr u ski Talk 08:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep since the product is indeed notable (take a look a Google books, there are about a dozen that cover this in depth and many more mentions), but the article is a mess. Might be easier to start over, although another idea is to remove most of the cut-n-paste text which is written in jargon and replace with English paraphrased from the sources. I could probably help since I am doing all sorts of these now days, but do not want to invest time into something that gets deleted anyway. W Nowicki (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but I'm not convinced that the presence of third-party technical manuals (which is all I can see in Google Books for this) about a tool is really sufficient to establish its notability, given that it doesn't seem to have any other form of reliable third-party coverage.-- K orr u ski Talk 08:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No claim of notability, also appears to be a few copyvio issues with a Google search, however nothing clear-cut enough for me to suggest speedying. Mdann52 (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * KeepThe reason this page is under deletion consideration was because I put advertising/promotion content onto the page. I would like to start by apologizing for what I have done. This was the first time I ever encounters wiki and I have not enough knowledge about how wiki works or runs. My intention was 0% promotion and advertise/marketing is definitely not my purpose to help the page. I have been reading the rules and guides of wiki and I have already removed most portion of my edits. Can I get a second chance to help this page?I will from now on get prove from the help chatroom before doing anything on this page. For the notability issue, I understand that the article does not contains a lot of references, but I do know there are a lot of references exists for this topic. Maybe we can have a references needed (issue warning) on top of the page, but not delete the page that so many people contributed to the page before I do, or wanting to contribute in the future. JunWan (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep the fact that this article gets an average of over 30K visits a day (source) implies that this article meets the threshold for notability. Earwig's copyvios tool says that there is 5.4% copyright violation (source), which just isn't enough for deletion of the whole article in my opinion. Technical 13 (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Number of visits does not indicate notability, and anyway where on earth did you get 30K from? It looks to me as if the page gets around 1,000 a day. The copyvio is reduced now because I've already deleted reams of text but is irrelevant as it's not a reason to delete - failure to establish notability is.-- K orr u ski Talk 08:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Addressing a comment from above, I do not see why the several books on this subject being technical in nature should disqualify it. Of course it is a very technical product intended for technical customers, so sources on it will be technical in nature. In my opinion, Wikipedia already has a strong bias toward "pop" subjects, with articles on two kids who wrote an app over a weekend being much more plentiful than true technology innovation. What this article needs is to be paraphrased into normal English. Alas, since normal language is not seen as a skill of value to software developers, what we get is filtered through marketeers who have their own way of obscuring any information with buzzwords. There are several articles related that are in bad shape. SAP HANA for example says it is composed of TREX search engine, SAP NetWeaver and MaxDB but those articles do not mention SAP HANA at all, so no idea if nor how they really do relate. And of course it has nothing to do with clouds nor solutions, but every software article now seems to mention those two words. The question seems to be is it worth trying to get this one into shape or start from scratch? W Nowicki (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that technical sources should disqualify it. My point is that a tool having 3rd-party manuals does not necessarily make it notable per the WP:GNG.-- K orr u ski Talk 16:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but still do not follow your reasoning. Why do paper books entirely on the subject not count? Since they are third party, that sure sounds like "independent" to me. And since each entire book is on it, sounds like very "Significant coverage". The fact that they can be found on Google books certainly sounds like easily "verifiable". Perhaps I am old-fashioned, but paper books with reputable publishers seem much more reliable than the wikis and web sites that are used in most other articles. The real issue to me is still that the current article does not use those reliable third party sources! Which is why deleting and re-creating a properly sourced article would also be fine with me. But the subject is notable and needs an article. W Nowicki (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * weak Keep but reduce the level of detail. Third party manuals are published only on subjects whee the sales are expected to be significant, because the product is important. I think they count towards notability, at least somewhat  DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 16 September 2013 (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.