Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EventQL

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EventQL

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The references are not independent, and no notability is added by external links such as a listing at the GitHub hosting service and a page which merely gives a three-sentence inclusion in a list. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

KEEP: There are two links to external and trusted news sources (heise.de, highscalability.com and oschina). If you go to twitter or github you can see that a lot of people are using the software and found it interesting. The code is available - it's clearly not a hoax or vapoware. What else is required to proof notability?

Here is a list of independent articles/discussions around EventQL [From the wikipedia policy: Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.]:

Please also consider that EventQL is the open-source version of BigQuery and compare with the BigQuery page. The BigQuery page does not add _any_ references or external links. For EventQL you can go to GitHub and check that it has received a lot of interest from developers, for BigQuery you have to rely on google press releases (it's the only linked information). Why are different rules applied here?

Either both pages should be deleted or the EventQL page should be kept. Deleting EventQL but keeping BigQuery would be highly unfair and uncompetitive to open-source. 62.251.60.126 (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being "unfair and uncompetitive" is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not a marketing tool. If you think another article should be deleted, then you are free to propose deletion of that article, but the decision whether to delete EventQL or not will be made on the merits or lack of merits of that article, not on the basis of another article which may or may not qualify for inclusion. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there does not appear to be any reliable coverage in independent sources. Doesn't meet notability guidelines. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Github projects come and go so quickly, so someone just noting that they exist is not enough evidence of notability. BigQuery certainly needs work, but it has been around six years and noticed by those besides its developers. W Nowicki (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Have the sources mentioned by 62.251.60.126 been analyzed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable 3rd party sources found in searches or in the above bulleted list to demonstrate that this project has attained notability at this point. AllyD (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IP 62.251.60.126 highlights 3 sources: heise.de, highscalability.com and oschina. OSChina seems to be community page, highscalability.com blog (however some articles are nice). So only heise.de can be considered reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, but its coverage of EventQL is brief (one small paragraph among other news about software). Not enough to estabilish notability, I fear. Pavlor (talk) 13:24, 30 August 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.