Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JayData

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. MBisanz ^talk 21:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Bold text===JayData===[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Refunded after a contested PROD, but the issues still persist. Sources are either unreliable or not independent. Nothing I can find suggests this passes the basic notability requirements. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Beat me to it. Spam from developers. Lacks coverage in indepoemndent reliable sources. A search finds more JayDatas own site, blogs and forums. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Guys, bear with me, but I wouldn't have spent collecting technical information to spam with an opensource library. The library has been enlisted on Microsoft Developer network (see the first MSDN reference) and it's acceptable to have the official documentation in a blog, please do not expect any reference to a book to a new tool, or fancy press releases bought for $1000 (that would be spam). How should I improve the this article? Other articles (TypeScript, Knockout.js) have been accepted by technicians. 4000+ developers have downloaded the library for free, and the development team answered about 100 questions in the forums and blogs for free. I thought a WikiPedia article would help them to get more info for free, I'm disappointed now. Bonayr (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC) — Bonayr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Googling for JayData reveals 19K links. Excluding sites that are under the direct control of the JayData project still leaves us 17K links from various mobile dev sites, stackoveflow.com, etc.. Google for this: jaydata -site:jaydata.org -site:jaydata.codeplex.com -site:github.com Peter Aron Zentai (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC) — Peter Aron Zentai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Google hits and forum postings are not indications of notability, see WP:GHITS. - MrOllie (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. WP:Existence_does_not_prove_notability says "you need to have received coverage in more than one independent reliable source". Ref1 (Microsoft Developer Network) and Ref13 (official website of open data protocol) are enlisting the library, I hope this indicates the notability. Please let me know if other references pointing to the relevant page of the documentation should be deleted, I hope readers will find it useful. Bonayr (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simple download listings like those two don't qualify - the general notability guideline requires 'Significant coverage' - that means that sources address the subject directly in detail. Those two links are what we call 'trivial mentions'. We need a couple of sources that are specifically about JayData and cover it in depth. - MrOllie (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you recommend to include this link (05.29.2012): mobile.dzone.com/announcements/jaydata-unified-data-access ? It speaks about JayData and has a huge visitor number. R15 and R17 delve deep into the subject and was published by a professional consulting company (the outside of the development team). Bonayr (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, dzone posts user submitted content, and that's what that is: a post submitted by a member of the JayData community. - MrOllie (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if I see this right we are disputing if the 'Significant coverage' is met. Reading WP:GHITS did not reveal me anything that would back your point of view, but maybe I have missed something. It says that the correlation between google hit count and coverage is not a rule of thumb, needs considerations.It's a general guidance that suggests me that this topic do have coverage. Also, since there are more then two blog posts from independent sources detailing JayData (listed as references) we just arrived to a point where those sources are judged and none of them you found reliable. I don't know how such a claim can be justified. Those sources have contributed content to the community prior the JayData library ever existed.Peter Aron Zentai (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This smacks of an advert, in addition to the comments above about independent sources. If it's really new, maybe it's WP:TOOSOON?Roodog2k (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2012 (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.