Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cascading

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 in, not delete. A merger can be further discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 06:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cascading

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

fails WP:NSOFT and WP:SPIP. only non-promo news seems to be reuters article on company capitalization last month, but it's not related to the software, which seems entirely NN. note: declined prod by page creator, no reason given. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added more references for notability. Additionally, wondering why something like Apache Hive can work. Seems like it might be guilty of the same sorts of things that got Cascading here. Thanks. --Gavin.mcgovern (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment excellent point. — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specific notability references to notice: SD TImes, O'Reilly, BioMed Central & Etsy. Also, this isn't self-promo; I don't work for them, just a fan. Thanks.--Gavin.mcgovern (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment i didn't think you did work for them, and WP:SPIP doesn't refer to the creator of the article practicing self-promotion, but to the information in the references being self-promotional, which I still think is the case even with the new references you've provided. I'm sure the software gets the job done and stuff, but it really doesn't seem notable to me. anyway, thanks for trying, and i'll shut up now and let the community decide. — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems like the sections about Cascading in the SD Times and BioMed Central articles are light but reasonable coverage showing that this is a notable enough project for its own article. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:02, 23 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Apache Hadoop. The Biomed article is about Hadoop, and gives only passing mention to Cascading. The SD article is also not primarily about Cascading. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, or at worst merge with Hadoop. It's clear from the citations provided that this is a prominent Hadoop-related tool used by notable companies such as Rapleaf and BackType. Steven Walling • talk 03:31, 6 September 2011 (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.