Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoSQL (RDBMS)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OsamaBinLogin (talk | contribs) at 17:25, 23 August 2011 (NoSQL (RDBMS): my 2c, please keep it). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
NoSQL (RDBMS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(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 inout 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]

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]

  • 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 inout 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please keep the article. But yes, there's an important distinction between NoSQL, the concept of databases beyond relational, and the NoSQL product in particular. I'm currently searching for a job and a lot of the job listings request expertise in NoSQL. (which I don't have. But it's really good to get a quick overview here in WP so I know what the heck they are talking about.) Cut out inappropriate parts maybe. But yeah, the product does not fall within the concept. I'll add something that will probably be soon deleted.  :-| OsamaBinLogin (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]