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 significant coverage in reliable sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DbVisualizer[edit]

DbVisualizer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I placed a PROD on this article for having no third party sources - the prod was removed without any such sources being added, so here we are at AFD. I looked for sources myself, and I could only find the usual mix of howtos, press releases, and download sites that come up for nonnotable software. No independent reliable sources about the subject, so I submit that this article topic fails both the general notability guideline and the guidelines specific to software. MrOllie (talk) 10:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on the talk page: I am not the creator of the stub, nor did I delete the initial message re deletion, but I think "DbVisualizer" meets the notability criteria for remaining an entry in Wikipedia. I am also in the process of adding some text and external links to the entry.

The software has a global following in the database community, and is spread in at least 112 countries (source: DbVis Software). Coverage on the web is fragmented, but massive. You get 339 K hits on Google for "DbVisualizer" in many languages, including Russian, Swedish and number of more or less exotic ones, while of course the majority are in English. The notability is also persistent over time, with posts dating back to 2002.

Please note that while the company behind DbVisualizer is a commercial enterprise, the software is also available in a free version.ChristerW (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you added a number of external links to various reviews by various self published bloggers. These don't help build a case for notability unless they are published by reliable sources. To quote WP:NSOFTWARE: ' the mere existence of reviews does not mean the software is notable'. Your argument about google hits is commonly brought up and well addressed by this essay.- MrOllie (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be a compilation of press releases. I also assume that most of us would like to cite traditional, reviewed academic publications. But I think we need to accept that significant work of great value is done outside of academia, particularly in SW, and thus will see no or little coverage in academic channels that can be verified the oldfashioned way. This leads me to the part where Wikipedia suggests we use common sense in evaluating sources for notability. The irony is that Wikipedia itself is viewed as unreliable and unverifiable by many, including my daughters' school, which explicitly forbids the use of Wikipedia in their school work. I myself put greater faith in the power of many, and while there still is a lot of questionable entries on Wikipedia, as whole I think it is a good source of information on many topics.

The same logic applies to the Web. A single entry or review may not be enough to establish notability, but if a great number of the hits point in the same direction, common sense may tell us we have something. Of the 340k or so hits on Google, the majority is obviously of low value. But I followed your links and the suggestion to try more specialized searches. Google Scholar - 79 hits, Google books - 359 hits, and Google News - 73 hits, all for "DbVisualizer". ChristerW (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can you state categorically that 79 academic references on Google Scholar are not relevant after reviewing the post for 7 minutes? Or the 359 books referenced? Where is common sense? ChristerW (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)— ChristerW (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Perhaps you can point out some specific ones that have some substantial detail on DbVisualizer, and not just a trivial mention? I picked a few to check from those search results at random, but The Religious Traditions of Japan 500-1600 didn't have much detail. - MrOllie (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is more to it than Japanese religion. I've found a few, and am quite willing to scour for more if we're having a real discussion. http://thesisdatabankvisualisatie.googlecode.com/svn-history/r68/trunk/CaribouVisualisation/src/site/resources/Project.pdf is a Masters thesis about visualizing databases with the help of JPA (Java Persistence API) which is spot on re what DbVisualizer is about. The thesis is in Dutch, but is actually possible to read if you know English, German, and some Nordic languages. Next one is https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/ibanez_conrad_v_200908_ms.pdf, a Masters thesis about visualizing a genome database. In English, luckily. https://books.google.se/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lWO5VwKEftkC&oi=fnd&pg=PT9&dq=dbvisualizer&ots=ter1GkuOjC&sig=Txf0u08pqVnucAW0jfTo6U5FmWs&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=dbvisualizer&f=false leads to a formally edited and published book by database guru Ronald Rood, who writes favourably about DbVisualizer in a book that is mainly concerned about Oracle. https://books.google.se/books?id=lWO5VwKEftkC&lpg=PT9&ots=ter1GkuOjC&dq=dbvisualizer&lr&pg=PT353#v=onepage&q=dbvisualizer&f=false is the most interestiong mention of a total of eleven in the book. Apologies for the bulky URLs.

Are these references helpful? If yes, I'll happily look for more.ChristerW (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is, ironically, considered an unreliable source by its own standards. So what? It does not follow that verifiability should go down the drain. Tigraan (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ArtemGratchev, your authorship is greatly appreciated. I hope you don't perceive this review to be slighting that work. Perhaps the best guidance is found by clicking on the following link: WP:NSOFTWARE. In particular, references to significant critical reviews from independent authoritative sources and discussions providing context for those references will provide the best basis for retaining the article. I hope this helps and, more importantly, I hope you remain a member of the Wikipedia community.--Rpclod (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard not to perceive this environment as harsh and slighting. I can read. I have some experience from various aspects of publishing, though a newbie at Wikipedia. It is easy to flaunt links to various rules. But we all know that this is not an exact science, at the end of the day it is about passing judgment. And I think there should be yet another Wikipedia rule (maybe there is one?) about consistent and equal treatment. If you look att the comparison list (linked to from the proposed article) you will find a long list of database tools that have their own articles in Wikipedia, and most if not all rely on self-published and promotional material. In fairness, quite a few are marked for various deficiencies, but none is slated for deletion. Is it too much to ask that the same standards are applied in a given area, SW or not? As a reader, I expect Wikipedia to be comprehensive in any field that is deemed fit to be covered. You should either let the DbVisualizer article stand, with homework to do, or start deleting the others.

As a side note, I think it matters tremendeously that Wikipedia is not a reliable source by its own standards. A worthy challenge would we to redefine proof of notability and criteria for reliability for the Web age, where a lot of significant sources couldn't be bothered with traditonal publishing bureaucracy. There is more in the balance than a few more entries for SW tools, imagine establishing a new standard so that educators stopped failing our kids if caught redhanded with using Wikipedia.

Oh, and here is another edited and formally published book reference for you to shoot down: https://books.google.se/books?id=L3qfayrqJ1oC&pg=PA630&dq=dbvisualizer&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAWoVChMIttvc1sWHxgIVClgsCh2ACQAs#v=onepage&q=dbvisualizer&f=false. Page 630. It is a tool, and it can most likely be substituted. It can still be notable, as the authors seem to think. ChristerW (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"You should either let the DbVisualizer article stand, with homework to do, or start deleting the others." is a perfect exemple of WP:OTHERSTUFF. The fact that a growing share of the internet (important note: not all of it) is full of unverifiable claims does not mean WP:V ought to go. Teachers punishing WP use has more to do with professoral bigotry and the inability of some student to use it correctly. Anyways, if you disagree with the guidelines, the correct process is to go discuss them on their pages, not to start with a special exception on one article. Tigraan (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tigraan, I'm not asking for a special exception, quite the contrary. Please treat all database tools equally, that is all. And no, I don't think I disagree with any of the WP rules I have read. But I do disagree with some interpretations of them. I do notice that the otherstuff rule acknowledges that precedent is sometimes valid. In this case, we are looking at a pattern where some 30+ other tools are allowed to have articles. This is different to when you build your arguments on a single article that hasn't been written yet or some stray article that slipped through the net though it should have been stopped.

Now, I will make an honest effort over the weekend to try to address the concerns listed here. In the meantime, I would appreciate your view on what needs to be done to avoid deletion. Preferably with very specific concerns, not just links to rules that are easy to agree on but are open to interpretation. I do, in good faith, beleive that some of the external links meet the GNG standards, but I will try to improve.ChristerW (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gene93k, I am afraid that DbV simply does not pass GNG so there is nothing to be done. I expressed my main concern above: I found no source here or by searching that could count toward GNG because they all fail on separate points. If there is a source that does (1) talk about the subject at length (2) is independant from the subject and (3) is reliable, all that at the same time, please point to it. We do not need many sources, but we need high-quality ones.
As for OTHERSTUFF, let me cite the relevant excerpt. Of course interpretations can vary, and moreover, as an essay, it is itself a mere interpretation of the guidelines. However it does not follow that all interpretations are equally valuable, equally popular, or equally likely to form a consensus.
The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article (…). Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. Therefore, just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it. (…) Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test); these may be effective arguments, but even here caution should be used.
"Other stuff exists" is only a short dismissal of an incorrect analogy reasoning; it does not mean any analogy reasoning is incorrect.
The problem here is that you are implicitly assuming that other articles are analog to the current one, when they are not: this one is currently at AfD while others never went to it. If a similar AfD discussion took place in the past and it was decided to keep the article, then it would be an argument; the burden to prove that the past decision was incorrect or inapplicable to the current case would be on delete !voters. (If it is indeed the case, please link.)
The "went to AFD" part is a significant difference. Otherwise, pushing things to the extreme, I could create an article on foo, and then run a bot to create similar articles bar1, bar2, etc. in a way that does not mean any speedy deletion criteria. Then at the AfD for "foo" I could say that bar1, bar2 etc. are similar and still here; by the time those get deleted, my bot will have bar100, bar101, etc. up and running for me to fall back on.
If you think that those other articles are even worse and shall be deleted, feel free to nominate them. I think you are most likely correct on that point. But you should not use it as a diversion from the current page. Tigraan (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2015 (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.
More