Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CrateDB

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. MBisanz talk 00:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CrateDB

[edit]
CrateDB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. PROD notice removed with no reasoning. -- HighKing++ 15:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hi HighKing, CrateDB is gaining importance in the database tech scene. I had launched the page some years ago as it is a late success within a regional open source initiative, which I was involved in 2006. Several people have edited the article, and I did an update today. I was deleting the delete notice because the info I got says: "You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary". A summary of the edit update has been provided. I can guarantee that this article is not paid and I am not having any relation with CRATE. I know one of the founders (who was also active in the open source initiative in 2006), and when I interviewed him I paid the coffee myself. I can try to find more references for usage of this open source database technology, e.g. download statistics. Rasos (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rasos, there's pretty clear criteria on acceptable sources to establish notability such as WP:N and WP:ORGIND/WP:CORPDEPTH sections especially. To date, the sources you've added do not meet the criteria. -- HighKing++ 12:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I think the sources in the article confirming Crate Data funding satisfy WP:GNG, although I'd like to see more quality sources describing the technology itself. Also the article is reasonably written and not spammy, unlike so many other obscure product articles. -- intgr [talk] 22:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi intgr, I've looked at the funding articles. Sources should be seen as intellectually independent. The TechCrunch article fails WP:ORGIND since the information is provided by the company and the article relies almost completely on quotations from company officers or company-provided details. The Finsmes articles are News Releases from the company or VC firm announcing a deal so they also fail the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing++ 12:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: I think you're misinterpreting WP:ORGIND. Sadly there is no official policy/guideline about independent sources, WP:IS is the closest thing I guess.
ORGIND would apply if TechCrunch was simply reposting Crate's press release. But in this case it's an original TechCrunch article, roughly half of which is quotes from Crate's representatives. TechCrunch's editors were the ones to choose the quotes for their own narrative — they had editorial independence — which is regular reporting. Secondary sources must, by definition, be based on information from primary sources.
As for FinSMES, I'm not convinced it qualifies for WP:RS, but again they look like independent articles — reporting based on the press releases perhaps — but not simply reposts of the press releases. Compare the article article to the press release for that funding announcement. Or do you have specific evidence that they have a connection to Crate Data or Dawn Capital? -- intgr [talk] 12:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi intgr, Apologies, I should have referred to WP:CORPDEPTH which states quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or and brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, as criteria for excluding sources in order to establish notability. -- HighKing++ 14:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi HighKing, I'm with Crate, and thanks for raising these issues. There are quite a lot of recent references to CrateDB, that should be added to the page. Can you please postpone the deletion process and give us time to find a community member willing to freely update the page with references like the following? I believe they meet the guidelines you mentioned...quality sources and also very fair and detailed descriptions of the technology:
Hi DatabACE, please take a look at WP:N and WP:RS to understand what sources are acceptable to establish notability.
  • This YouTube video fails WP:N since YouTube is not regarded as a reliable source as their is no editorial oversight and is self-published. Furthermore, at 45:47 in the Talk, Kyle points to Crate as being a sponsor, so it cannot be regarded as intellectually independent.
  • The Techtrailblazers winner fails WP:AUD which states attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. I believe it is fair to say that a competition in a tiny area of emerging database technology is of limited interest and circulation.
  • The Register article is an "advertorial". There is no criticism, no mention of competition, everything really positive. It reads like a press release and is not intellectually independent. It fails WP:ORGIND and further down the article it becomes obvious that the information was provided to The Register directly by the company because the article says they were in touch, includes quotations from the CTO and also written communications as it states In an email to The Register from the CTO.
  • The qualtrics article (which is a blog post) fails because it is a blog which is regarded as a self-published source with no editorial oversight and therefore cannot be regarded as reliable
  • The Aphyr blog post fails the criteria for the same reason as the one above
  • The db-engines] listing fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is inclusion in lists of similar organizations.
Sorry, but none of those sources are acceptable for establishing notability. It is perhaps WP:TOOSOON for this topic to have its own page. There's more than enough though to make sure it can be included on other articles such as "List of..." type articles. -- HighKing++ 14:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: Agreed about everything else, but the The Register article does appear to qualify for notability.
I understand your frustration with the low quality of many news sources, but that's not for Wikipedians to weed out. Advertorials exist and we just have to live with it. Notability doesn't require a source to be critical of the subject.
"the information was provided to The Register directly by the company" — so by your standards, if a news organizations interviews the company for an article, it's not considered an independent source any more? I think you're going overboard with this.
You also missed the part where CTO Paul Hofmann (the one "in an email to The Register") isn't from Crate Data, he's the CTO of Space-Time Insight, a user of CrateDB. -- intgr [talk] 15:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi intgr,
  • You say I understand your frustration with the low quality of many news sources, but that's not for Wikipedians to weed out. Actually the opposite is true. If the Editors don't weed them out, we end up with very low quality articles full of spam and little more than adverts pushing a company's POV. That's one of the reasons behind examining articles at AfD.
  • You say Advertorials exist and we just have to live with it - Advertorials and PRIMARY sources can be used to back-up certain non-contentious facts. This format or article just doesn't meet the criteria of source we require to establish notability.
  • You say Notability doesn't require a source to be critical of the subject. I agree, it doesn't, I made this point to highlight the lack of intellectual independence.....see next point
  • You ask so by your standards, if a news organizations interviews the company for an article, it's not considered an independent source. Not precisely. But if a "news" source runs a story and the only obvious "input" into the story is information from the company, then yes, it falls fouls of WP:ORGIND. "Independent source" means that the source must also be considered to be "intellectually independent". Advertorials which consist of large amounts of quotations from the company are not "intellectually independent". Those types of articles are really a form of "engagement with the press" and are typically "on-message" and positive. Just like most other forms of PR. There are articles that contain quotations from a company officer that would not be considered advertorials and would be acceptable. Just these ones aren't...
  • You say You also missed the part where CTO Paul Hofmann .... isn't from Crate Date. You right, I had missed that. You also say but The Register article does appear to qualify". I still don't believe so. If you look at the PR release by Crate on the 14th December (here's a link) it pretty much says all the same things. And even includes a quotation from Paul Hofmann, CTO of Space-Time Insight just like The Register.
Also understand, there are different criteria for getting listed in an article like List of column-oriented DBMSes and getting your own article. Also, can I ask if you have any connection with Crate? Any conflict of interest should be declared if it exists. -- HighKing++ 14:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: I have no conflict of interest with CrateDB; I've never even used the software. I had this page on my watchlist, it was probably linked from one of the pages I maintain. Sorry that you spent the time writing up a long response, but I don't have the energy to debate this further and I doubt it would change either of our opinions, so let's just agree to disagree. -- intgr [talk] 22:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the feedback @HighKing:. Can I ask why CrateDB is being flagged for deletion and a page like MongoDB is not? The references on that page clearly do not meet the criteria by which the CrateDB page references are being judged? If you want to flag the CrateDB page has having multiple issues (a la MongoDB), that seems fair...or propose the deletion of MongoDB. Neo4j references...links to their website? Tweets? DB-Engines ranking? Delete that? InfluxDB..same..delete it?
My point is that the CrateDB page does not seem to vary from the norm on the topic of database management software here. And if you take a view of CrateDB in the real world (based on references we're discussing here and many more), it is an open source software project that has a substantial following of users, that the press/media finds relevant, that independent technology thought leaders like Aphyr consider worth covering in things like the Jepson tests (his decision to test CrateDB was neither prompted by nor paid for by Crate.io).
Anyway..I hope the voters will elect to keep the page...flag it as having issues maybe, but deletion seems extreme IMHO. DatabACE (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DatabACE, in general arguments along the lines of "but XX exists so why not YY" aren't considered. The minimum requirement for notability is generally accepted as two sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. If you examine each of those articles, chances are that among the sources that don't qualify, you'll find two that do. If they don't, you (or someone else) may check to see if two sources can be found and if not, may nominate the article for deletion. Using PRIMARY sources and other sources that don't meet the criteria for establishing notability are acceptable for establishing non-controversial facts. -- HighKing++ 14:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the schooling HighKing...I'm trying to RTFM here as quickly as I can to come up to speed.
  • Delete -- investment prospectus / product brochure. No indications of notability or significance. Sources presented at this AfD do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH while the funding numbers are minuscule as far as tech startups go. WP:NOTADVOCACY -- Wikipedia does not exist to improve funding prospects of minor private companies.
Adding WP:TNT to the mix: "The developer community is meeting at mountain hackathons" -- what does this even mean? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi K.e.coffman, I'm not sure the WP:CORPDEPTH apply here, since this page is about an open source software system, not a company. The page was originally about the company, CrateIO (thus the corporate-ish reference history), but was retitled last year. DatabACE (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - If the page does get deleted... Is it possible to create a new one in its place? And if so, how soon? Of course, without the issues which led to its deletion in the first place. Again, my plea would be to have it flagged as having issues (rather than deletion) to give the CrateDB community a little more time to bring it up to date and into compliance with notability requirements. DatabACE (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And for my future reference...do we agree that articles like The Register (last December) are reliable (secondary) independent of the subject? Yes...article was triggered by a CrateDB product announcement, but the the journalist decided whether the news was notable enough to write an article about and The Register editors decided the article was notable enough to publish. Issuing a press release does not guarantee that those two gates (article writing and publishing) will be cleared...they are usually not! The Register journalist also interviewed other sources (not just Crate.io spokespeople/press release). I assume everyone here understands the difference between journalism and advertorials...there are some news sites that just regurgitate press releases, but TechCrunch, TheRegister aren't two of them. DatabACE (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is too late. This article is a lot older and in my opinion there was adequate time to find sources. I originally PRODded the article and the notice was removed without any attempt to improve the article or engage in a discussion about how to improve it, so the next option was here. Other editors may have different ways of working and may have placed a different banner, or may have moved straight to AfD. -- HighKing++ 13:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the editor #1 of the article I feel responsible to add more independent voices. You may have noted that I added a section "Review". A test result with some flaws in data consistency has been cited. CrateDB definitely should get more reviews and probably needs some more time to achieve that goal. As you may all have noticed, the article is supported by WikiProject Software and WkiProject Computing. And well, it's about Open Source, which typically has less visibility in media than proprietary software. Rasos (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've spent considerable time looking for sources that meet the criteria and I believe I have found at least one and possibly two. As such, I am striking the implied "Delete" from my nomination and moving to Keep. These sources were not easy to find so apologies if this seems like I had not researched previously - I had.
I would appreciate a second opinion on the above sources, especially the book. -- HighKing++ 17:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks so much for going the extra mile/kilometer to find those sources HighKing. much appreciated. This has been a valuable learning experience; if the page remains we will moderate its maintenance more vigilantly. DatabACE (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – As even the original nominator of this article for Afd now with the newly found sources supports keeping this article, I think it might be a good idea to finally have this Afd decided and closed. In my opinion there is more than enough evidence in the article now showing the state of notability. At least the two sources that HighKing found definitly also meet our criteria. Therefor the issues that originally led to this Afd have been fixed and the article can be kept. --Plani (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why is a piece of software (and a notable piece, it's widely(sorry!) used) being judged against CORPDEPTH? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:45, 2 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CrateDB&oldid=1143884824"