Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StreamSQL

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 of the debate was keep (no consensus). — FireFox • T [21:26, 6 April 2006]

StreamSQL

Found this on prod and I think it deserves an afd. This is surely ad copy that needs to be rewritten NPOV. Mentions in popular media: MSNBC/Forbes.com Washington Post (though trivial) eWeek [1] [2] [3] [4] database journal [5] and more on google. No vote yet. kotepho 20:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Full disclosure - I was the one who prodded it. Now much cleaned up but I find the notability a bit suspect. Dlyons493 Talk 21:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this article is certainly ad copy. --Deville (Talk) 04:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revised, NPOV, and facts added Updated article based on above feedback.(DMParent 22:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 00:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge anything important to Michael Stonebraker or SQL --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete I think this article will sort itself out as standardization efforts progress. I killed off the marketing and added more techincal detail. Tibbetts2c 21:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverting to Strong Delete. Adding The leading company in StreamSQL implementation and standardization is StreamBase Systems. (complete with link) doesn't equate to killed off the marketing in my mind. Note that Tibbetts2c's only edits have been to this article (created by User:Sbmarketing) Dlyons493 Talk Dlyons493 21:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is decent enough for me to vote keep. kotepho 21:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killed the implementation section entirely. That addresses the above point. There are multiple commercial entities using StreamSQL-like approaches to solving this problem now, so I vote to keep it.

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.