Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoSQL (RDBMS)

NoSQL (RDBMS)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While NoSQL is notable, this implementation of it is not — indeed the only non-WP:SPS is an unreliable blog post. Furthermore the article, by going into philosophy et al, is confusing for readers — as evidenced by unilateral moves being reverted by community consensus. -- samj _in^out 03:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete faisl WP:GNG and needs to be substantially clearer about how exactly it differs from other things with similar names. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Although I am no fan of this article, you seem to be overlooking the Linux Journal story. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced — this is merely a tutorial that does not give value judgment on the product or why it should be considered notable. Inclusion with its ill-conceived and conflicting name is going to cause more confusion for the vast majority of readers. Also, what's up with "RDBMS" in the title of a non-relational database? -- samj _in^out 11:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - It is enough that the column covers the topic in depth (i.e. is "significant coverage") and is from a reliable third-party publication. If we admit one of the other 2 Further Readings, then the GNG has (unfortunately) been satisfied. The NoSQL in question is not a non-relational database; it predates the modern buzzword, and its name merely means that it does not use the Structured Query Language for specifying its queries. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]