Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UnQL


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

UnQL

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Repeating the rationale from my earlier prod: This has been flagged for notability and primary sources for eight months with no improvement. The only source appears to be a set of web deadlinks (unqlspec.org resolves but goes to a blank page) and a press release. Google scholar finds highly cited research on something called UnQL, dating from the late 1990s, but it appears to be unrelated. The prod was declined, with the suggestion that this instead be merged with NoSQL, but I think this is a bad idea because the two subjects are at very different levels of technicality (one is a specific access language, the other a broad class of approaches to database organization) and because the same lack of reliable secondary sources that make this non-notable as a standalone article also make it non-notable as information to be kept by merging elsewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Article be merged and redirected with NoSQL; not deleted. The majority of the article can be left in the history, with the single paragraph [intro?] merged. Alternative/additional merges can be to SQLite and/or CouchDB. --J. D. Redding 04:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC) [P.S. there seems to quite a few mentions for notability in the Google Books search.]


 * Are you sure those book mentions aren't for the 1990s UnQL? That one is indeed notable, I think, but unrelated to the subject of this article. Almost all the hits I see when I search books for UnQL are pre-2011. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a little more refined search
 * Again, I would recommend a merge somewhere. And upon a further look, I'd merge the article into Apache CouchDB (most applicable, as most references today include mention of that software) and make a disambig for the AcDB' UnQL and the 90s UnQL. --J. D. Redding 16:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No reliable independent source to establish notability. Blanked project pages make merge to NoSQL inadvisable. --Kvng (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete (failing enough wp:weight for a merger). There is an older language with the same name that might be marginally notable, but the one described in this article is only briefly mentioned in a Ubuntu 2011 book along the lines of "not yet ready for use". Given that there seem to be a at least a dozen NoSQL-related books out there, this seems to be too trivial of a mention even for a merger. If you're feeling magnanimous, you could write a sentence along those lines in the NoSQL article, but I don't see what contents from this stub justifies merger. Also, this seems to be at the specification stage, with no word on any implementations, so merging with any actual products like  SQLite and CouchDB because they are projects on which the authors previously worked seems downright wp:speculation. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: I'm convinced the thing exists (I just stumbled on the research paper). But my concern is whether it has gone anywhere. I cannot find anything about recent developments and the spec site is down. So I'm wondering whether the initiative hasn't simply petered out and died (without reaching notability). Oppose a merge, by the way: NoSQL, CouchDB et cetera are different things. -- BenTels (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Amusingly enough, this aimed to put back "QL" in NoSQL (according to that source I found, which clearly described it as an "interesting development in the NoSQL world" before saying that it's not yet useful), so it might be worth mentioning there, but with only one independent source and unknown current status, it seems a stretch... Tijfo098 (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2012 (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.