Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toolsverse ETL Framework

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toolsverse ETL Framework

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

Non-notable software. No other coverage except this article, which borders on spam. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[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}}.

Delete, scanning Google's bringing up no external sources, fails WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful and informative. It states it is released this July so no wonder there is a little to none of external coverage Maksym contrib (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC) — Maksym contrib (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, spam would be introducing a non-relevant product,service, or topic into an established area (i.e. ETL frameworks in this case). This is simply a new software package, and there are other such packages listed on the ETL frameworks page that are not up for deletion. The person who said that this is spam actually is the one generating spam, as I would wager that he/she works for one of the other companies represented on the ETL frameworks page. Regarding a lack of external sources, isn't this a circular argument? If one introduces a new software package completely relevant to the given area, it may take time for an external source structure to grow. Let's give it a chance to do that weslipschultz (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)— weslipschultz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, It is an info on a newly released product and as such surely warrants its place here. And I completely agree - requiring external coverage right after the realease does not sound right. serge66 (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)— serge66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication of topic's notability in the article, and search returns nothing even remotely similar to reliable sources independent of topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As stated by others the 'notability' is not something which can happen overnight. Also in no way it is indication that article in question describes something which has no place in Wikipedia. The policy should guard against spam or blatant advertising, not ligimit articles about new open-source products. I'm asking powers that be to give it a time and let it be. OlenaSherbinin (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC) — OlenaSherbinin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment No, notability does not happen overnight. It takes time, and this product was only released this week. But lack of notability very much is an indication that this topic should not yet be covered at Wikipedia, because lack of notability means there are no independent sources by which to verify the information. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. No prejudice to recreation in the future if that changes but this really does appear to be a case fo jumping the gun on creating a Wikipedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:38, 30 July 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.