Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DBeaver

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. No prejudice against recreation should notability be properly demonstrated — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DBeaver

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

As a relatively minor piece of freeware released just 3 days ago, it cannot possibly pass the

_berate 13:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete. It's possible this is merely
WP:GNG just don't appear to exist. I searched and found nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I copied the following statement from the article talk page.
Phil Bridger (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi, I'm the author of this tool. One of community members wrote original article. As it was considered for deletion he asked me to add references to external independent resources. So i've just added a few links. And I've been a little bit surprised that it was marked as spam. But I understand that it may look like conflict of interest. I won't resent if you just delete this article.

Probably it is really too soon, but actually DBeaver was released as freeware about 1.5 years ago. GPL license was applied just 3 days ago, thats true. Here is list of public freeware releases (freecode): https://freecode.com/projects/dbeaver/releases . There are a lot of users (about 10 thousands of downloads monthly) of this tool. Also we receive many positive feedbacks (many of them a public on support forum). Also it is completely non-commercial. Moreover DBeaver was already mentioned in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_database_tools) - don't know when and by whom. So I believe wiki article might be useful.

Here is list of links with DBeaver overviews/discussions:

I found these links in google by word "DBeaver" in first few pages so I'm sure there are many other conversations and articles concerning DBeaver functionality in existent commuinties. Also as DBeaver is non-commercial there were no promotional articles at all. Most "looks like promotion" pages are placed on different download sites by bots and we have no relationship to them, we are suffering from this spam content as well.

Sorry, I've never wrote anything in Wikipedia talks before so maybe I badly formated this message. Serge.rider (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. Sorry, but most of those links are not reliable independent sources. Blogs, forums, and wikis are not reliable, things that are hosted at places like wordpress aren't considered any better than blogs, and so on. As to being non-commercial, that doesn't matter. Non-profits, charities and multi-nationals are subject to the same rules. There must be some sort of notability shown. I think it's too soon for this to be possible. Incidentally, promotional articles about DBeaver would not be of use either. To prove notability, things must be independent, which promo articles aren't, and reliable - which means not only must they not come from the subject, but they must be identifiable as such. In blogs and forums (and wikis), comments may come from independent users who are delighted with the product; they might just as easily come from the PR department. I accept that you weren't trying to promote - the article is written in a very neutral manner as we require, but until the product is better known it is too soon for an article. Peridon (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I agree. DBeaver is not an "academic standard" for now. Let's wait for a while (as I understand it doesn't make sense to update original article). In our defence I may say only that there are many similar software in Wikipedia with even less notability (e.g. SQLPro_SQL_Client, Maatkit, Orbada, DBEdit, etc) - it made me think that rules are not so restrictive. Sorry. Thanks to Phil Bridger for copying my article here.

Serge.rider (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fully agree about those articles. One possibly has the excuse of being created before rules were tightened up, but the others don't. Things do slip through our net of patrollers, and often the gnomes tidy things and categorise without considering notability. I think some software gets through because a lot of us don't understand what it is, in the same way that I usually avoid things about American sports and mixed martial arts. I will probably put PROD notices on those articles later. However, we do have a policy
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which stops the existence of an article being an excuse for another one. Please do feel free to join us and use your knowledge of software to root out stuff that doesn't belong, or to update stuff that does. I will understand if you feel reluctant to tag other people's products in case they accuse you of sour grapes... Peridon (talk) 19:27, 3 July 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.