Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YugabyteDB (2nd nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YugabyteDB

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not enough notability shown. Unambiguous advert. Tame (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tame (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tame (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tame (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yugabyte

. The Cockroach page has fewer references, is mainly marketing and doesn't show why it is notable The TiDB page has references almost exclusively back to the vendors site and is basically a list of features they want to push The former YugabyteDB page that was taken down was nothing to do with me and was clearly written from marketing material however I believe that what I have written covers the topic seriously and with relevant references for a fast growing $1Bn company - Please look at https://db-engines.com/en/ranking to see Cockroach at position 58, TiDB at 95 and Yugabyte at 121 of 351 databases and many of the database entries below in the ranking page have wikipedia entries

I am happy to add any content that you think will demonstrate this to be more notable - I have already added the rapid funding rounds and growth and will add anything else you suggest. Datamgmt (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datamgmt (talk • contribs) 01:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (on balance at present with possible need to
WP:RS sources. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Since nomination I have found the time to add another 30 references in most sections, however that work needs to continue. A special call out to Djm-leighpark for pointing out that it is the references that would help make the product more notable. These additional references mean that at the time of writing there are 7 academic publications, 27 news sources 9 general web pages and 20 from the product page (up from zero as they refer to specific features - in the same way as the TiDB website does - I originally omitted these as I was trying to find extra references for absolutely everything - however when it comes to some of the descriptions of how it functions they can only be found on the company pages 'More citations needed' and/or 'incubation' may have been more appropriate tags as I have clearly been working on it regularly as time allows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datamgmt (talk • contribs) 17:58, 15 January 2022 (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.