Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoSQL (RDBMS)

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 no consensus. sfter several relistings, there still does not seem to be consensus. AfDs have to end at some point. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strozzi NoSQL (RDBMS)

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

While NoSQL is notable, this implementation of it is not — indeed the only non-WP:SPS is an unreliable blog post. Furthermore the article, by going into philosophy et al, is confusing for readers — as evidenced by unilateral moves being reverted by community consensus. -- samj _in ^out 03:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete faisl WP:GNG and needs to be substantially clearer about how exactly it differs from other things with similar names. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:34, 11 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, BusterD (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Although I am no fan of this article, you seem to be overlooking the Linux Journal story. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced — this is merely a tutorial that does not give value judgment on the product or why it should be considered notable. Inclusion with its ill-conceived and conflicting name is going to cause more confusion for the vast majority of readers. Also, what's up with "RDBMS" in the title of a non-relational database? -- samj _in ^out 11:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is enough that the column covers the topic in depth (i.e. is "significant coverage") and is from a reliable third-party publication. If we admit one of the other 2 Further Readings, then the GNG has (unfortunately) been satisfied. The NoSQL in question is not a non-relational database; it predates the modern buzzword, and its name merely means that it does not use the Structured Query Language for specifying its queries. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proving my point, even I'm confused — NoSQL (RDBMS) *is* actually an RDBMS according to the article. Added disambiguation template. -- samj _in ^out 15:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further confusion here following a reverted move, just before your (contested) PROD :) -- samj _in ^out 22:39, 1 September 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, BusterD (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the article. But yes, there's an important distinction between NoSQL, the concept of databases beyond relational, and the NoSQL product in particular. I'm currently searching for a job and a lot of the job listings request expertise in NoSQL. (which I don't have. But it's really good to get a quick overview here in WP so I know what the heck they are talking about.) Cut out inappropriate parts maybe. But yeah, the product does not fall within the concept, and the name suffix (RDBMS) is wrong, as it is not an RDBMS. It is, however, a DBMS, as DBMS is a more general concept. I'll add something that will probably be soon deleted. :-| Somebody else can rename it. please. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you're looking for the NoSQL article, which already covers the topic you're looking for well (and just goes to demonstrate the confusion this article causes). -- samj _in ^out 14:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has been established by Cybercobra. Cunfusigness is not a reason to delete; The article can be improved. --Kvng (talk) 22:56, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have removed unreliable, irrelevant and self-published inline references and found that there were no reliable inline references whatsoever. Of the 3 articles listed under "Further reading", only one is from a reliable source and even then it did not actually appear in the printed journal (rather "Strictly On-Line). There appears to be no doubt the subject is not notable today, and significant doubt as to whether it was even notable 10+ years ago. I strongly believe that our readers would be better served if this article were deleted — it is essentially just a replica of content available on the official site anyway (so much so that I would consider the Philosophy section to be a WP:COPYVIO of this at least). -- samj _in ^out 15:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment It's absurd that any AfD should be relisted thrice. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:37, 2 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.