Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aster Data Systems

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The result was Keep as withdrawn. Synergy 05:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aster Data Systems

~~Contested speedy, blatant vanity page with no assertion of notability. Reads like a company prospectus, probable COI. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

- Keep but completely rewrite Evidence of notability has been estabilshed, but the marketing portions of this article have to be removed and the remainder expanded and made NPOV. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note. It does seem to have achieved some level of notability: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Undoubtedly, the article isn't even remotely encyclopedic. I'll add it to my list and try to work in it soon. user:j (aka justen) 06:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but massively re-edit. The MySpace use makes the technology notable, though the article is written as company marketing. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a CompSci person, I'd like to see some citable evidence that this stuff is any good. Where are the papers? Also, I can't see that there is anything at all worth preserving in the current text. None of its distinguishing features appear to distinguish it from products like Hadoop, and HBase except that I know that they can be run on way bigger system that 360TB of data. With only one customer, its hard to have any independent writeup of the technology, which is why academic papers could be a good way of verifying the content. Without that: nothing but marketing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveLoughran (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be some form of independent verifiable sources to supplement the article, and as of right now, none seem to exist. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justen's already dug up four above (and here's another two for good measure), all from reliable outlets (Washington Post/Techcrunch, CNET, PC World, Information Week, etc.). Needs a good tidy up to remove the marketing guff (might have a go at it myself later), but I think it comfortably passes the general notability guideline. Keep. Gr1st (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2008 (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.