Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MarkLogic

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The result was speedy keep, no delete !votes, nomination withdrawn. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MarkLogic[edit]

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

No independent third-party sources - the third-party sources listed are reprints of press releases; no evidence of notability; reads like an advertisement. David Gerard (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sigh. I really wanted to !vote delete based on the paucity of suitable sources and the poor quality of the article, which does indeed read like a press release. But we base notability not on the sources already cited but on those available, even if they are not yet cited. Googling turned up a whole book on MarkLogic plus mentions in other books, e.g., here and here. I really have no choice but to !vote to keep. Msnicki (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Crikey, how did I miss that. OK, just a crappy article then. Sigh, it's been there since 2005 and has sucked in every revision - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from original nominator per Msnicki. Now can someone please make the article not suck? - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2013 (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.