Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaql

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 keep, with kudos for a collegial and productive discussion. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jaql[edit]

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

Author removed my PROD. However, my point that this query language is not notable still stands. The sources given in the article only describe how to use it, rather than actual coverage. I'm open towards the idea of redirecting this to a relevant article, but I still don't think that this had individual notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the problem here. This language is used in industry. If you want to remove this article you also have to remove PIG, HIVE which are peer languages and if the problem is that you think this language is IBM proprietary then PL/I has to be removed as well. I think this is a good starting point for an article and already gives an overview and links to the relevant information. Please let me know what is missing. Thank you very much. (BTW: I'm IBM employee but I'm not payed for doing this - just using this language in my day to day work and found that is was missing on Wikipedia) --Romeokienzler (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Romeokienzler and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry you got hit with deletion nominations right off the bat. WP can be a rough neighborhood these days. This forum is about WP's notion of notability of the topic, as described in the policy WP:Notability. The upshot is that to save the article, we must show Jaql has been covered in multiple publications that are (1) reliable sources (WP:RS) like papers, books, or news stories, (2) independent of Jaql's creators, and (3) in-depth, which in practice means at least a few paragraphs or page of prose. I've identified some publications that I think fit the bill below, but if you know of others, let us know about them. --Mark viking (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This paper is an independent reliable source and discusses Jaql in some depth, comparing it to Pig and Hive. This chapter in the book Connected Computing Environment has about 1 1/3 paged on Jaql and a comparison to Hive and Pig; the authors work for IBM India and seem unconnected with Jaql's creators, so perhaps independent enough and an RS. A third source is this paper which is independent and an RS, but is not quite in depth. There is a TechRepublic white paper on Jaql, but I haven't signed up to assess its content; it may be another independent RS that is in depth. Altogether the first three sources may be enough for marginal notability according to the general notability guidelines WP:GNG. The article itself is new and lacks secondary sources, but otherwise has no major problems. A marginally notable topic and and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is very promising, although I'm not sure if papers count as reliable sources. I can't access the second link for some reason, while the third link, I can't access too. I'll be happy to withdraw this AfD if someone finds a source which is more in-depth, or if my question regarding the reliability of papers is answered. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Narutolovehinata5, this paper has been presented at the 9th International Symposium, Advanced Parallel Processing Technologies 2011, Shanghai, China and published as Lecture Notes in Computer Science at Springer. Among scientists this is highly recognized as reliable source. In addition it is described in two books, Link1, Link2. Please let me know if this is sufficient or if you need anything else. --Romeokienzler (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition I would like to mention that the authors of this Springer paper are form Heriot Watt University and not from IBM. Of course these whole BigData and MapReduce topics are relatively new in comparison to traditional programing languages. --Romeokienzler (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, the papers presented above aren't the strongest, but they're probably just good enough to push this over the line. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:23, 11 March 2014 (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.