Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GunDB

Add links
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. Nobody except the page's creator wants to keep this, so it's a clear case despite the disruptive walls of text.  Sandstein  10:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GunDB[edit]

GunDB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable product. The article has listed a lot of references but *none* of the references meet the criteria for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The editor Tmobii has a WP:COI and created this page in response to failing to gain concensus for including his product at Graph database. -- HighKing++ 14:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are UCLA, Forbes, WSJ, AllThingsD, hackernews, angel.co, BoostVC, reddit, and others not independent sources? Many of those sources are used elsewhere in Wikipedia to establish significance. Could you please justify and back your claims rather than personally attacking me? Two separate admins have rejected your request to ban me, and I have spent a lot of effort to find credible and significant sources that even match your requirements (you have given no reason why they are not other than just stating they are not) - in order to have a civil discussion you have to actually let me present a case. The current consensus count is 4 pro and 4 con in the graph talk thread (I encourage others to read it), so please do not act like you have consensus when you don't - your statements need to be backed by evidence, not opinion alone.Tmobii (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per policy, creators of the article should be notified (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion) "But if you are proposing deletion of an article, you can send a friendly notice to those who contributed significantly to it and therefore might disagree with you." There is nothing wrong with me defending the article. Tmobii (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sources listed in the article are:
And please stop saying I tried to have you banned. Here was when you were IP hopping and warned about WP:3RR and here was when you continued to insert your product without engaging in discussion. Many editors including me have repeatedly pointed out why your sources fail as they do not qualify as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as per WP:GNG but you just keep repeating the same sources and the same arguments over and over without adding anything new and without referring to policies. Creating this article is a sign of disruptive editing and not getting it. -- HighKing++ 14:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing, thank you for going through the sources mostly 1 by 1 - that is the exact sort of discussion I was looking to have! Cheers to you.
- Many projects emerge from R&D at previous companies and is common in the tech industry, and for startups this happens so often they coined a term for it "pivot". Kafka came from LinkedIn, as a nice big corporate example. The recent PokemonGo hype is another example: https://www.cnet.com/news/google-to-spin-out-game-maker-niantic-labs-as-independent-company/ . This leaves us with two logical options: (A) you have to justify why Kafka, PokemonGo, and others also should be disregarded or why they are different in their migration/pivot/spin-out or (B) My counter argument does bring up a valid point as to why your argument is non-unique.
- Additionally, if all you care about is Mark Nadal, then policy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source ) states that the writer/creator/author can count too. So there is no reason to dismiss sources because they are about the author of the system (with the exception perhaps if it is completely irrelevant, but that is not the case with GunDB).
- GitHub is peer review, and you have avoided replying to this countless times, and you have provided no citation, policy, or evidence against this. Claiming that GitHub's rating system is "user generated" is false because GitHub stars are not self report, they are peer vetted. You still need to address the fact that GunDB, Cayley, and ArangoDB are almost as popular as Neo4j.
- NPM tracks downloads yes, and if you noticed what the current report is: 4,500+ downloads in this last month and that is being reported by the independent source of NPM which matches verifiability requirements.
- Angel.co / BoostVC are not self report, the billionaire investors actually had to approve of their listing. You still are not explaining why that is not notable, fund raises are a big deal in the technology industry.
- Your claim is factually false and can easily be checked by going to CodeNewbie's site, it is not by Mark Nadal but an interview of him, CodeNewbie is a well established podcast in the industry having interviewed 100+ others, and has an audience of over 17,000+ developers.
- You again ignore the fact that both HackerNews and Reddit are vetted news sites. Your claim might be relevant if those postings had no upvotes, but they both were significant enough by others (not the author) to land them in the top news. (Unrelated note: You finally let me add ArangoDB back in to the Graph list, which I am thankful for. According to your own requirements though, it has less significant sources and even cites HackerNews. This suggest to me that either those are qualified enough sources, or you are purposefully targeting GunDB.)
Summary: You keep on committing a strawman fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman) in order to avoid the important significances. You then discredit extraordinarily recognizable sources like UCLA, WSJ, Forbes, AllThingsD, etc. in a double standard way.
Note: An independent reviewer, No1lakersfan, has already approved of this page. At this point in the discussion having independent third party reviewers is important, because you have unilaterally dismissed this entire page because of your deletionist agenda on the graph page - so much to the point you claim I have provided no new sources even though you responded to them! Neutral perspectives are needed.
Maybe we are from different cultures, but if you do not want people thinking you are threatening to ban (correction: block, thank you for clarifying that, I am wrong on saying ban then) them don't say things like (in the link you posted) "...this will not end well for you and you will probably end up with a block. Not a threat, ..." because people will interpret that as a threat especially when you take action on it as you have. Likewise, many other editors also sided to include GunDB, such as D3x0r, me, an unsigned user and now a few independent reviewers that see no problem with it: No1lakersfan and Levlev32. Finally, you accuse me of disruptive editing but all I am trying to do is follow requests including what Michaelmalak himself said: "To re-add, establish notability by either linking to a dedicated Wikipedia article about the database" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Graph_database#Why_can.27t_I_add_an_entry_for_a_new_Graph_Database_into_the_list.3F). I hope you can see how people might feel scammed, because we've made every attempt to comply with your standards and then you accuse us of being disruptive when we do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmobii (talk • contribs) 16:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. (A) & (B) No. I don't have to justify Kafka or Pokemon Go unless you provide links as to what precisely your counter-argument is. If you are trying to claim that Kafka or PokemonGo should not have an article, then you clearly (still) haven't read WP:GNG and you don't grasp what is required to denote notability. If you are trying to claim that your product is the same as Kafka or PoGo then I'll repear - you obviously have not read or understood WP:GNG (Hint: They all have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You should also understand the definitions of each of the bolded terms before you grasp the requirements for notability.)
  2. I don't give a hoot about Mark Nadal although I do think he has lovely hair in his photographs. You say that authors can be considered sources and this is true - but with a qualification. You need to read the rest of that guidelines where you'll find that the qualification for authors is Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Self published sources are largely not acceptable. Can you provide a reference that shows Mark Nadal is a recognised expert in this field whose work has been published by a reliable third-party publication?
  3. You keep referring to GitHub as being peer-reviewed and therfore acceptable. Again (and on the same page you pointed out yourself), it states that questionable sources are those with no editorial oversight and user-generated content from websites are generally unacceptable. It uses the example of IMDb and other collablratively created websites. GitHub falls into this category. The exceptions are where the content is authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff. GitHub does not fall into the exceptions.
  4. NPM does not qualify since the criteria is "notability" and not "number of times it has been downloaded". Refer to WP:GNG.
  5. Angel.co and BoostVC are not "independent" sources as they are investors and therefore WP:BIASED and not neutral (assuming they want their investment to succeed ... with investors sometimes you can never tell!).
  6. codenewbie .. OK - I stand corrected - it is an interview of Mark Nadal and not a poscast by Mark Nadal. As a source, codenewbie would not be regarded as being a reliable source since it is a "community" grown out of a weekly TwitterChat. Leaving that aside - content produced by Mark Nadal is not independent.
  7. Hackernews and Reddit - the links you provide are user-generated content and so unacceptable. (Aside:- I didn't "allow" you to add ArangoDB back in. I edited that ArangoDB article to add in a reference to a book (see! ... a reliable source that was independent of the subject!) and that (in my opinion) was enough to denote notability.
  8. Nope, I point you to the policies and guidelines and encourage you to read them. For example, in your response you've pointed to WP:RS, plucked out a sentence that appears to support your adopted position, but its pretty obvious to the rest of us that you've ignored everything else (and especially the bit that shows that the bit you're trying to rely on has a qualification on "author" that you've ignored).
  9. You ask - Maybe we are from different cultures? This sort of comment is condescending in the extreme and distasteful.
  10. You appear to be making a habit of plucking parts of sentences out of context and wrapping them in one possible interpretation to bolster the position you adopt. For the benefit of others, the entire comment reads as follows:
OK, you asked for a point-by-point response, which I provide. You then fail to respond with any argument based on policy or address any points I've raised - and then revert the article anyway. That isn't how we do things here. I'm going to request that the article is protected from editing by IP addresses and revert the article once more. I predict that if you want to edit-war rather than discuss, this will not end well for you and you will probably end up with a block. Not a threat, just reciting what I've learned through experience.
I don't actually believe that you really thought this was a threat to have you banned/blocked and I believe you have chosen to portay my comment in this way to cast me in a bad light. This is more of a reflection on you than me. You've proclaimed that you were threatened in 4 or 5 difference places including the Talk pages of at least two admins. That kind of behaviour can sometimes backfire.
Some final notes, it isn't the number of people that "side" with you that counts but policy first, then consensus. I see no contributions from No1lakersfan - please provide links/diffs. Levlev32 has made 3 edits (one of which was to add GunDB to Graph database in December 2015 - a year ago) and is irrelevant unless (s)he decides to get involved now. This isn't a contest to count !votes. Arguments must be based on policies and guidelines and the closing admin will use that criteria to decide. Finally - disruptive editing - read WP:WAR and especially WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. You continued to insert your product details into the article despite the effores of three of four other editors (including me) to remove it and discuss at the Talk page. If there is a dispute, it gets settled on the Talk page and only then does an article reflect the decision reached. The consensus on the Talk page was to remove GunDB as it was WP:TOOEARLY. -- HighKing++ 15:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thorough reply! I am going to reset the indention level because it is getting hard for me to read anything on my laptop's screen because all the text is squished in such a narrow column:

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG (bold added below to focus discussion on policy) Tmobii (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Are UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/AllThingsD Independent? Yes. They are not controlled by GunDB or any of its team.

- Are UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/AllThingsD Secondary Sources? Yes. They are multiple different outlets and publications.

- Were UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/AllThingsD articles Significant? Yes. They went into detail about the people, events, software, demos, things covered.

- Are UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/AllThingsD Reliable? Yes. They are all institutions that do fact checking and verification to maintain the integrity of their institutions.

- Are other databases and their vendors accepted on Wikipedia? Yes. Then inclusion of GUN is Presumed to not be a random collection of information.

- Kafka and PokemonGo are both companies/projects that spun out from a previous company, same with Gun, there is no policy or argument against this.

Policy is great, just because you quote it does not mean others are violating it. As an example, if I quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recentism at you, that does not mean I suddenly have a super power to judge you about how short sighted what you say is. Next time, please try to provide reasons why and not just quote.

2. The author of GunDB does not work for UCLA, WSJ, Forbes, AllThingsD - these are not self published. He is not being quoted as an expert, instead there has been significant media coverages of him as a founder and his work, published by multiple independent and reliable sources.

3. Other editors disagree with you on this. A neutral third party editor answered the RfC saying that GitHub's rating system is 'yes ish' qualified "Yes, GitHub is suitable source for the purposes of indications on what is "notable" enough to go into the list." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Graph_database#RfC_about_Open_Source_software_notability) As far as this page (which is not the Graph list), the GitHub references are about events (like the Open Source MIT/ZLIB/Apache2 license decision), not as qualifiers.

- GitHub's ranking system is not self report. GitHub's ranking system is separate from the self-published user-generated content on GitHub.

- Editor Markbassett's list is a great resource, I'm going to repost it (which is for table/list inclusion) here "Supporting examples of GitHub data use ..."

Measuring programming language popularity Wikipedia already mentions GitHub as indicator
Arxiv On the popularity of GitHubs applications]
UC Davis - StackOverflow and GitHub: Associations Between Software Development and Crowdsourced Knowledge
InfoWorld GitHub's top 10 rock-star projects
RedMonk Programming Language Rankings (using GitHub)
Wired - How GitHub Conquered...
Fossbytes - Top Programming Languages on Github
Data Just Right: Introduction to Large-Scale Data & Analytics (book)
IEEE use of GitHub

4. You are correct that NPM is not an established outlet like UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/AllThingsD. NPM is an independent secondary source to verify download counts and the popularity of GunDB. It is much better to cite a source than for the Wikipedia article to just state "GunDB has X downloads", especially since downloads change all the time. For this, NPM is reliable.

5. Angel.co is not an investor, it is an independent secondary source that allows people to verify a company's claims of investment because it requires the approval of Billionaires like Tim Draper and Marc Benioff of Salesforce. Of course they are biased, but that is not what is being discussed here, it is about verifying that they are investors. If somebody were to claim "Bill Gates gave me a million dollars" you would want them to back that up right?

6. Which is better, for the article to just claim that the author said those things, or reference the actual podcast where he said those things?

7. Simple question: Is it true or false that GunDB was launched on HackerNews and was on the homepage?

- Second question: Is it true or false that the upvoting system is authored by the admins of the site?

- Third question: If the editorial staff and credentialed members who run site do not think the voting algorithm is generating good results onto their homepage, is it or is it not in their best interest to modify the algorithm to prevent abuse or gamification? (If you are curious how they deal with this, check out https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html, I am sure Reddit has its own)

To conclude, while you are correct that adding stories is user generated, the ranking system is not. And on community news sites that are as popular as HackerNews and Reddit, achieving a high upvote is a sign that the algorithm authored by the editorial staff views it as being notable (which is separate from Wikipedia's rules for notability). But that does not dismiss the fact that those user-generated additions of news stories were notable on those platforms, they are, and so was GunDB's.

(On the aside: Thanks for editing that reference to ArangoDB. Why did you leave the HackerNews comment though, which is UGC, if you think HackerNews is unacceptable for GunDB? Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArangoDB#cite_note-3)

8. Please see my policy comment in (1). You claim "obvious to the rest of us" but do not cite anybody else - if other people agree with you, they can comment themselves.

9. You seem offended by my question if we are from different cultures, I am sorry about that (it is not something I would have thought is offensive, so please accept my apology). I'm from the USA, and it looks like you are from Ireland?

10. This is very much off subject, but I am fine with discussing it - so apologies to others that the following remarks are going to be written in a very personal and emotional tone rather than what I try my best (and probably fail often) as being a logical one. Yes, I was offended, and no, you are not entitled to "I don't actually believe that you really thought". I am glad you posted your full remarks because it lets me point out more of the pieces that personally offended me (note: it might not others). When you say "That isn't how we do things here" that is a very ostracizing/excluding/otherizing comment when I know for fact that Wikipedia founded on the idea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles) of openness and inclusivity.

11. Could you quote policy on why other editors' historical contributions do not count? Not everybody has unlimited time (like it seems I do) to engage, but that should not be held against them unless there is policy.

12. Given that Cayley, GunDB, and ArangoDB had consensus on the Graph list since 2015 (see edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graph_database&oldid=693524343, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graph_database&diff=725428050&oldid=725139748 had an invalid reason, and then https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graph_database&diff=744210160&oldid=744035674), evidence shows that an anonymous IP started the revert war of deleting that you then continued when other members of the community (like D3x0r) tried to restore the list to its original long standing consensus. Also given that Cayley and ArangoDB have been added back in, it looks like the original long standing consensus was correct and disagrees with your deletionist (like you are trying to do to this GunDB page entry) agendas.

Do not let this stop you from trying to make your points though, they ought be heard. Cheers to open discussion and debate for all! Tmobii (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • As explained at Forbes#Forbes.com, it now uses a contributor model. Indeed, the Forbes ref on the article expressly states: "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." By Forbes' own admission, it has not be subject to any editorial review. It may well be challenged as a reliable source on that basis, per WP:SELFPUBLISH. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is acceptable and backed by an explanation. If you would like to discard "Forbes" that seems reasonable, but given that multiple sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG) have covered the events relating to the article, this is not a reason for deleting the article as a whole. As far as the Forbes article itself, the author has been published in "Fast Company, The New York Observer, The Next Web and VentureBeat" which may be okay since WP:SELFPUBLISH states "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Tmobii (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
UCLA/WSJ/AllThingsD are not user-generated. Further, notability requirements (Significant, Reliable, Multiple Sources, Independent, and Presumed, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG) have been explained as being met in the previous (1) point, could you please explain why those are invalid reasons? Discussion and reasons are important, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion .
Also nominator did not follow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BEFORE (C) guidelines of offering suggestions for improvement first on new articles, they immediately rushed for deletion. Having other editors review and improve the article would be a great start first before hand.Tmobii (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And here we go again....incorrectly attributing actions to me. You've done it so many times that I believe you're doing it on purpose so please stop. First of all, WP:BEFORE is a guideline and not a policy, so it doesn't *have* to be followed. Nevertheless, I believe in this circumstance and given the discussions that had already taken place at Talk:Graph database and how you'd failed to produce a single source in order to include your produce in a List - which is a much lower bar than having its own article, I don't think there are any grounds for criticising this AfD. On the other hand I believe your attempted creation of this article can be criticised on that basis alone - and you have a clear conflict of interest. You really should consider dropping the stick and backing slowly away from the dead horse. -- HighKing++ 21:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. I already said it was a guideline. Your response seems like I said it was a policy? As far as whether you are the nominator for this page's deletion, that is easy to check (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GunDB&diff=750112258&oldid=749113463) which indicates that you are - is this wrong? I'm not trying to misattribute you.
2. Sources provided (to refute your claim that I did not provide a single source): UCLA, WSJ, Forbes, AllThingsD, The Kauffman Foundation, HighScalability, GitHub, Angel.co, HackerNews, BoostVC, Reddit, NPM, a page to their tradeoffs (https://github.com/amark/gun/wiki/CAP-Theorem), an actual user story "Distributed Machine Learning with GunDB" http://myrighttocode.org/blog/artificial%20intelligence/particle%20swarm/genetic%20algorithm/collective%20knowledge/machine%20learning/gun-db-artificial-knowledge-sharing, and another actual user story https://medium.com/a-weekend-with/a-weekend-with-gun-a61fdcb8cc5d . All of these sources have been found in order to comply with the requests outlined here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Graph_database#Why_can.27t_I_add_an_entry_for_a_new_Graph_Database_into_the_list.3F . Could you please explain your claim that "you'd failed to produce a single source"? I've provided evidence to disprove this claim.
3. I have advocated for Cayley, GunDB, and ArangoDB, all of which had long standing consensus since 2015 before you and others started deleting them (see point 12 above for links/evidence of this).
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encourage_full_discussions , saying "You really should consider dropping the stick and backing slowly away" is a misappropriate usage of WP:STICK when this page is not even closed yet! I would much rather you continue the discussion and make arguments for why you are correct rather than simply stating "I believe" 3 times in the previous paragraph - we obviously have different opinions, and I would love to hear why you believe what you do. Thanks! (Edit: format/numbering) Tmobii (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Tmobii (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comparisons

Please compare against the other Open Source graph database pages that have been accepted for Wikipedia:

Tmobii (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These articles were already proposed for deletion (by the same nominator as here, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ArangoDB&diff=737874348&oldid=737850961) and their deletion was overruled. This should be an indication of precedence and meeting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG requirements of being "Presumed". If you could explain why these are invalid comparisons, that would help contribute to the discussion per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFDEQ . I look forward to hearing your responses (also recommendations on how to improve the article versus just deleting it)! Thank you. Tmobii (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tmobii, at this stage it appears to me that you are deliberately misquoting me or attributing actions to me that have nothing to do with me. Is there a reason why? This is the 4th/5th/6th/? time you've done this. I have not nominated any of those articles for deletion. I PRODed ArangoDB, there's a difference. I can see lots of crap references in those articles but to understand why they have been accepted as notable topics, you have to realise that there must be *at least* one reference that meets the criteria in WP:RS (and be aware that lots of articles are deleted if they only have one reference since a single source does not qualify as "significant coverage" - but it doesn't seem to get enforced all the time). If you check those articles you will probably find at least one source. -- HighKing++ 21:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. What is the difference between "proposed for deletion" (what I claimed you did in the previous paragraph) and "Proposing article for deletion" (what you said you did in this edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ArangoDB&diff=737874348&oldid=737850961)? You agree yourself that you "PRODed" it, how is that misquoting or misattributing?
2. More important, you did not counter the argument for "Presumed" precedence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG) of Wikipedia on the subject of databases - do you have one?
3. Several sources I have found provide significant coverage of the people/events/things discussed. What https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion could be done that satisfied the other database's significance but wasn't here?
As always, waiting to hear your input and thankful for your time! Tmobii (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. Why is it that you have such difficulty in paying attention to what is said and discussed? Why is it that you have such difficulty in reading simple sentences? Why is it that you always ask open-ended questions rather than answering specific points using specific policies and guidelines (and links)? Why is it that you're trying to weasel out of your last salvo of incorrect allegations and your misattributing of actions to me. Why is it that you maintain your allegation that the nominator of this AfD (me) had previously nominated *3* articles and the "deletion was overruled" (which doesn't apply to PRODs) and don't apologise and withdraw your remark but rather try to adopt a position that you are correct all along?
2. Why is it that you think you have the right to continue to disrupt these pages with incomprehensible arguments that have no bearing on policy and guidelines? Why is it that you fail, over and over and over, to read WP:RS and understand that the references you provided *all* fail and therefore your product has *zero* coverage that we can rely on to establish notability? Why is it that you fail to address the abject failure of the sources you have put forward as reliable sources? Why is it that you fail to address any of the policy/guideline arguments put forward and instead change tack and try a different argument?
3. Why is it that after all this discussion here and on other pages, you still maintain that you have provided "significant" coverage? Why is it that you have such difficulty in reading the analysis of your sources (above) and accepting that they fail for the reasons specificied? Why is it that you haven't found other sources that don't fail if this topic is not notable? Why is it that others can't find any sources either? -- HighKing++ 12:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yes, I see your point, 1 you did and 2 you did not - you are correct, I apologize (I just checked the other histories). According to WP:PRODS an admin decides, and according to (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ArangoDB&diff=746918873&oldid=737874348), an admin removed the deletion, thus overruling your PROD.
1. It would be nice if you did not attack me though, saying that I am "weaseling" or "have such difficulty" or am "incomprehensible" (or at least, why and where am I being incomprehensible?) are personal claims against my character and intelligence that goes against WP:AFDEQ and WP:Civility. We have different views, but that does not make either of us ignorant, instead we have the right to defend them with reasonable and thorough arguments backed by evidence - and I encourage that discussion.
2. 3. Citing WP:RS without replying to (1) (further above now) where it is explained that every WP:GNG has been met of reliable, independent, verifiable multiple secondary sources that have significant coverage, and dealing with an already presumed subject (which I expanded on in this section, about the already established precedence - which you have not replied to or denied), winds up being counteractive to WP:DISCUSSAFD and WP:CLOSEAFD where it states "..on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." and "Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion."
I would love to carry the discussion forward there. Cheers to you and looking forward to the debate! Tmobii (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing++ 20:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing++ 20:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding to the mystery around this company and its tireless advocate on this page is that the company's website and email seem to indicate it's located in the British Indian Ocean Territory, a tiny chain of atolls described as having no commercial activities. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what you are talking about? When I go to their website I don't see anything about that? When I follow links through to their investor profile it says "San Mateo" which goes to https://angel.co/san-mateo of California. I'm not sure why this is relevant as a reason for why the page should be deleted? Tmobii (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, well, the .io suffix used on the corporate website and corporate email corresponds, I'm told, to British Indian Ocean Territory. Whatever. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense, thanks for clarifying. Yeah, `.io` is popular in the tech startup world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.io#Startups. Tmobii (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was unable to find in-depth independent reliable sources for this database; the closest to such is [1], but this is part of a blog and is considered unreliable according to WP:RS. WSJ is generally a reliable source, but the video was a primary source. A number of sources were pointed out above, but I agree that all had problems. It seems that it is WP:TOOSOON for this product to have gained multiple independent RS. Given the semi-biographical nature of the article irrelevant to the software, I think it likely that there are COI issues as well. But the main problem is lack of notability of the database according to WP:GNG and given the article's emphasis on the founders and company marketing it, WP:CORPDEPTH as well. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your respectful and policy based input! I really appreciate it, and here are some rebuttals to your points:
1. Your point about [1] is good, and I believe you are correct that it is not from an established source. Note however [1] is not cited as a source in the GunDB article! So this has already been taken care of (and thus not a reason for deletion as a whole). [1] was originally used in the Graph Talk discussion to comply with admin EdJohnston's and editor Michaelmalak's list inclusion requirements of "preferably an article that either interviews actual users of the database" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Graph_database#Why_can.27t_I_add_an_entry_for_a_new_Graph_Database_into_the_list.3F), and is not being used here.
2. The WSJ source's was published by an Associate Editor (https://www.linkedin.com/in/withdrake), which according to WP:PRIMARY states that it is policy "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care". So I think there is still a good argument that this citation ought be considered.
3. For the sake of being able to defend any claim, could you please go into more detail on your "I agree that all had problems" such that WP:CLOSEAFD, WP:DISCUSSAFD can be promoted, and this does not turn into a "I agree" poll (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion)? Thank you, I appreciate how kind and explanatory you have been in your involvement so far!
4. Could you explain how the fund raising from many notable sources, including UCLA, Billionaires Tim Draper and Marc Benioff of Salesforce, and others as cited in the article are "too soon"?
5. None of the items listed in WP:CORPDEPTH ("meeting times", "announcement of mergers or sales", etc.) apply to the citations given, what WP:CORPDEPTH does state "multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability" which has been done already (granted by the fact that your arguments are addressing multiple sources). If you could expand on your argument here, I think it would be beneficial.
6. I've been advocating for Cayley, GunDB, and ArangoDB not just GunDB, so please don't claim I'm COI when all Cayley, GunDB, and ArangoDB had long standing consensus since 2015 (links of proof of this are listed in (12) above) and I/others have gotten all except GunDB to be restored on the Graph page - I'm simply trying to finish restoring GunDB by complying with requirements (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Graph_database#Why_can.27t_I_add_an_entry_for_a_new_Graph_Database_into_the_list.3F).
7. Evidence of every WP:GNG requirement has been given elsewhere, particularly (1) previously. Would love to hear your response against these.
Thanks so much for jumping in! Looking forward to your response, thanks for being respectful and bringing up good/valid arguments. Tmobii (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  Startups have little interest to Wikipedia.  See WP:SUSTAINED, which says that WP:GNG coverage is not sufficient for a startup's notability.  If a product has potential, we can wait.  Once the topic has WP:DUE weight on another page, a redirect is then appropriate.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful points, here are some responses that address your points:
1. WP:SUSTAINED is met because there has been ongoing coverage since 2011, including notable fund raising from billionaires Tim Draper and Marc Benioff of Salesforce (see evidence above). Again, WP:GNG presumed exists because numerous other databases are included on Wikipedia (see the comparison section) which survived deletion proposals. Others have replied to this argument but offered no rebuttal.
2. I am glad you bring up WP:weight because GunDB had previously been included on the GraphDB page with long standing consensus since 2015 (see point 12 above). I was told to create an article so I found WP:GNG sources for this page (I would not be opposed to a redirect, but then the citations establishing WP:GNG might be lost - so this would need to be done carefully and with approval), to then connect with the GraphDB page and other databases.
3. Also given that WP:DUE states "Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included." and reliable sources have been found (UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/AllThingsD/Kauffman Foundation, etc., see point 1 in a previous section above), therefore WP:INSIGNIFICANCE does not have weight here (especially since it is not policy).
Thank you for bringing up these points! Would love to hear your response to the above analysis. Tmobii (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Tmobii (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GunDB&oldid=1143884200"