Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keyspace (data store)
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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keyspace (data store) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This defunct database is not notable, and fails to even assert notability. What few sources are provided are not relevant, not verifiable, not reliable and/or self-published. I'm taking it to AfD following an unsuccessful speedy nomination a while back and other problematic contributions by an editor more recently. -- samj inout 03:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
---
Some comments:
- Keyspace is no longer maintained.
- It is notable because it is the first open-source database to be based on the Paxos replication algorithm, one of the most basic algorithms in distributed computing. It is also the only acessible open-source implementations of the Paxos algorithm.
- I don't know what is means for an article reviewing a database to be relevant. Relevant to what?
- Same goes for verifiability and reliability.
- The sources are not self-published.
- I don't see how "other problematic contributions" by user Sae1962 have anything to do with this issue.
Mtrencseni (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: 3 of 5 inline refs are under the scalien.com domain (as is your email as Scalien co-founder, so let me throw WP:COI on the pile) and the other 2 relate to other products by Google[rs]. Don't get me wrong, your product sounds interesting — just not verifiably notable as required for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- samj inout 12:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not everything that is notable to a niche group is notable by Wikipedia standards. Joe Chill (talk) 19:30, 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]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 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) 02:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable software. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Nothing in Google books for this, or the company that markets it, Scalien, or it's successor product ScalienDB. The third-party sources given in the article that aren't blogs don't represent significant coverage.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:53, 21 August 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.