Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VTD-XML

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. No consensus is reached; hope is expressed for further improvement to the article. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VTD-XML

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

I will admit that I don't know what the heck this is about, but I feel that the article doesn't show that it is notable and is also trying to promote it. This came to my attention when deleting an apparently similar thing as being promotional. I hope that some with more understanding of the subject can say yea or nay to it. If it is promotional, it's not blatant enough for CSD and a request was declined by an admin quite a few edits ago. Peridon (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question for the nominator - I'm no expert in XML so I may just be exposing my ignorance here, but I think I need more info to form an opinion. My first foray through this article shows lots of technical posts that indicate a discussion about the topic that goes back at least to 2004. I'm not claiming to have formed an opinion about the topic's notability yet, so I wonder if you can elaborate on what is your concern... that Notability is not claimed? that notability is not proven through citations to RS? (there are plenty of citations, but the RS may be in question)... and for "promotional", I didn't see an obvious pattern. What is the concern here? Who/what do you think the article may be promoting, and can you provide any examples? I'd be inclined to tag this article as too technical for most audiences, but I didn't see what was driving the AFD Nom? 174.31.162.221 (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is about treating an XML document as a binary file and pre-parsing it to store byte-offset locations of notable structures and content in the document. Such indexing of binary files has been done forever, but applying it to XML data is relatively new. The project is downloadable on Sourceforge and has been written up in 3rd party articles, e.g., (There was a link here, but Wikipedia has blacklisted java.dzone.com. Ridiculous.) As a viable alternative to DOM and SAX APIs, I think this approach and thus this article is notable enough. I agree that the article is mildly promotional, emphasizing advantages over disadvantages, but there are some disadvantages listed. I'd recommend rewriting to make the article more neutral, not deleting it entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark viking (talk • contribs) 19:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep I am the author of this article outraged by ignorant people having nothing to do but messing other people's useful creations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.92.214 (talk • contribs)
- Well, you could try a. presenting an actual argument for this to be kept, and b. rewriting it in acceptable English. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll evaluate this against the WP:GNG and then make a judgment. First I'll look at the sources cited, then I'll look for others on the web. Ref 1 doesn't mention VTD-XML. Ref 2 is a slideshow presentation, not a WP:RS. Ref 3 is a technical information site for developers. Ref 4 is a broken link. Ref 5 covers VTD-XML in some depth, but is technical like Ref 3. Ref 6, 7 and 8 are all technical articles of the same type. Refs 9 and 10 aren't loading for me. Ref 11 is a technical article. Ref 12 is a pdf presentation probably not suitable as a WP:RS. Ref 13 is another technical summary. Ref 14 is a position paper by Jimmy Zhang, not a reliable source. Ref 15 and 16 are technical articles. Ref 17 is a SourceForge page that appears mainly promotional in nature. Ref 18 is a technical opinion article. Ref 19 is the SourceForge site. Ref 20 is another technical article. Ref 21 is another technical article. Ref 22 is a slideshow, not a WP:RS. Ref 23 is a position paper by Jimmy Zhang. Ref 24 is a technical article. It's worth noting that almost all of the secondary coverage in technical journals is by Jimmy Zhang of XimpleWare. XimpleWare is a privately held and presumably for-profit company, per its website. The company appears to be promoting VTD-XML. Thus Zhang is not really an independent journalist when it comes to VTD-XML. The only technical publication reference that does not mention Zhang is one by Viktor Volkman in another technical journal here in which Volkman says he got all of the examples from Zhang. This makes me wonder about Volkman's neutrality. I suspect that this is a concept or piece of software being promoted by Jimmy Zhang and XimpleWare, in part through articles in various technical publications. Thus these sources in my view are not sufficiently independent of the subject itself and not sufficiently reliable under WP:GNG. I did a search and could not find evidence that anyone other than Zhang (except for Volkman) has taken any sort of significant notice of VTD-XML. Thus I believe at this point the correct action is delete for lack of secondary reliable sources under WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also simply as a point of information in case other editors are interested (this does not affect the current discussion directly and is not an argument for deletion) see User talk:Jzhang2007 for numerous cases of previous deletion of both XimpleWare and VTD-XML articles. --Batard0 (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of broken links have been removed from the article. Thanks for pointing it out. VTD-XML is a piece of free and open source software that many people are using around the world to solve every day problems. The purpose of the article is to give a technical overview. There are tons of third party user inputs available on the Web I can point you too. As to some of the articles that have been deleted, I must admit that I don't spend whole day on Wikipedia and am not familiar with the rules and regulations, but i would be glad to do what it takes to make VTD-XML's wikipedia page conforming to the standard. jzhang2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.92.214 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for responding and making those fixes. I think what would be helpful is evidence of significant coverage by someone other than you (this doesn't have to be cited in the article, we just need to know it exists) of VTD-XML. I know it's free and open-source, but you and XimpleWare seem to be promoting it; I'm not sure what the arrangement is, but I assume the idea is that you develop and promote the free software, and then make money by providing support services to people who use it. Is that correct? The issue with coverage by you is that you're not sufficiently independent of the subject under WP:GNG guidelines. Are there reports by independent journalists about VTD-XML? --Batard0 (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not promotional and it shouldn't be proposed for deletion just because the proposer doesn't understand the subject. From what I can see it is highly informative and well referenced Fireflo (talk) 09:55, 20 October 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.