Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AgensGraph

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. Sandstein 09:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AgensGraph

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

This database software does not meet the General Notability Guideline. Sources found during a WP:BEFORE search are either passing mentions, promotional advertorials or from the company's own website. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is promotional in tone and no assertion of notability is made. Comes with a convenient COI disclosure! Triptothecottage (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant reliable coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete. Graph Database Technology is sill relatively new and there just isn't a whole lot of information about it. Having said that however, it is among the fastest growing and there will be a lot of content written on it. Moreover, some of the references used in the AgensGraph article are the same references used by some of the leading companies in the industry. For example, db-engines was used as a reference for Neo4j and github was used as a reference for both ArrangoDB and Neo4j. Again, this article does indeed need quite a bit of improvement and I am working hard each day to make those improvements. Thank you everyone for taking the time to comment on this article. Sincerely, Dataace9 (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then an article can wait until there is more content about it. If there ever is. SL93 (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...is sill [sic] relatively new and there just isn't a whole lot of information about it. Having said that however, it is among the fastest growing and there will be a lot of content written on it Congratulations, you've given us three reasons to delete this: it's not known, there's not much anyone has written about it, and Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. So, delete. --Calton | Talk 06:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.