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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LLBLGen Pro

[edit]
LLBLGen Pro (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)

This software product has no third party sources whatsoever. I've looked for suitable sources, and aside from a couple of blog posts and forum postings, I can't find any. Accordingly, I think this article does not meet the general notability guideline and should be deleted.

I am also nominating the closely related page on the discontinued free version of this software.

LLBLGen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

- MrOllie (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can you decide that there are no suitable 3rd party sources when I click on the provided links above to find sources in e.g. books I get plenty? E.g. https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22LLBLGen+Pro%22 lists many books referring to it, one even being solely about it. I have the feeling you haven't looked very well then. (e.g. it's on Microsoft's entity framework documentation landing page http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/ee712907 as it is one of the tools supporting EF).

About the free version page: it's there to make sure people don't make the wrong assumption the commercial version is the free version, although nowadays it's uncommon to make this error as the free one has been discontinued for quite some time now and the commercial one has been used by many people over the years and still is.

So in short, if LLBLGen Pro's article is removed it's not about lack of external resources, but some other reason, which I quite frankly have no idea about. - Otis_Inf (talk 12:09 26 November 2013 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 11:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC) — Otis_Inf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I looked at the Google Books results, but they seem to be inclusions on lists of tools (that is trivial mentions) or short sections of how-to style information, not things we could use to source the article. The one exception, the book by Chancellor, is self published and not helpful for our purposes here. Can you point out a specific book (or newspaper article, etc) that covers the software in some depth? - MrOllie (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have to be printed press? Anyway, second link on the result page at google: http://books.google.com/books?id=UxDLk5HoidwC&pg=PA360&dq=%22LLBLGen+Pro%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3Q-VUuG8F6e60QWM_4CYAQ&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAg
I must say I'm a bit annoyed. LLBLGen Pro is for more than 10 years a common name among ORM tools for .NET, and one of the very few commercial successful ORM tools left for .NET. Do I really have to hand you links to printed press to show that an article about a software tool is justified? Isn't that a little bizarre in this day and age? It's referenced on many sites out there, softpedia etc.. It's a little hard to find links in printed press online, IMHO. Infoq links are OK too? Or are those 'blogposts' too despite it being a major software development news site? I find it a little odd that I have to prove with paper sources whether an article in Wikipedia is justified for a software development tool that's so widely known and used as LLBLGen Pro. Sorry. -- Otis_Inf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I just recalled there's also an hour of video showing LLBLGen Pro on the DevExpress channel at youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv-Ozug5JMM 3rd party enough? --Otis Inf (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LLBLGen is well-known: I'm in the software field but not specifically object-relationship mapping, and I've heard of it many times over the years. There's a detailed review by Ayende Rahien here: http://ayende.com/blog/4579/nhibernate-tooling-review-llblgen-pro-3-0. Although the review is on a blog, it is by an unrelated third party, who is a recognized expert with non-self-published work in the field, and is thus acceptable according to WP:Reliable. --Steven Kelly (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book by Chancellor is self-published but that doesn't mean it's not a valid 3rd party source: mr. Chancellor is in no way affiliated with us now or in the past. Besides, what is not proven with the sources we contributed or which are easily found through google? As I'm at a loss why LLBLGen Pro's page is even considered to be deleted. IF the page is deleted, the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_object-relational_mapping_software is less helpful for readers as one of the widely used tools, LLBLGen Pro lacks a page here. I.o.w. 'mrOllie', I'm not sure what you're after... Otis Inf (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am 'after' ensuring that this article meets the inclusion guidelines. That means that either third party sources that meet our guidelines are added (that is, not self published blogs or lulu.com books), or the article is deleted. I have no preference as to which of those outcomes occurs. - MrOllie (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So i.o.w: you just want to apply your strict form of guidelines as 'rules' and ignore anything that's been brought forward, including answering any questions. By applying those guidelines as rules, most O/R mapping software tool pages can be deleted, simply because these guidelines speak of printed media and in this particular niche of software tools printed media isn't used often, or it's in a form which will never meet your strict guidelines to begin with. That there are other sources which do prove exactly what a printed book would too, namely that the page isn't about some non-existing tool which is used by nobody, is completely irrelevant to you apparently.
Btw, you missed a step too, you should have place a banner first which asks for sources before it is passed on to the step you immediately moved to. But whatever. It's not as if you give a hoot nor know anything about O/R mappers to begin with. I just find it silly to have to prove here like I'm on trial that what I've spent the last 12 years of my life working on full time, which is a successful business, which is well known in the .NET development community, is actually true and that I didn't make it all up here on this page on Wikipedia.
If no admin has replied by sunday I'll remove the banners from the pages as it's apparently less of a problem than you want everyone to know. Otis Inf (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are three pages about LLBLGen Pro in a printed book from Springer, Pro LINQ Object Relational Mapping with C# 2008 (Table of Contents). I consider notability established, and second the removal of the banner. --Steven Kelly (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Otis Inf:, @Steven Kelly:, please do not remove banners from articles actively under deletion discussion. In addition, attacking the nominator isn't acceptable behavior. The notability criteria for software is covered at WP:NSOFT, and the purpose of this discussion is to determine whether the article qualifies for inclusion based on those and other guidelines. Otis, since you seem to be involved in the software project, it may be important to review WP:COI. LFaraone 01:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there really a discussion? Several items have been brought forward, however nothing has really been said/done. I'm involved because I wrote all 1.1million lines of code of the project. I don't see how that's a problem though, as I didn't gave resources written by me, but by third parties, one is even a project member of another ORM. If you want to know my credibility in the .NET community, please search for 'Frans Bouma' and listen to one of the interviews I gave on some of the popular .NET podcasts. Frankly, I didn't know product pages were supposed to be written by 3rd parties as well... (have you checked other pages in the commercial ORM realm on wikipedia for this? I have the feeling you haven't)
Anyway, I have no further ideas what it is you all want to prove. The thing with niche markets is that small tools do exist but there's not enough critical mass for publishers to publish books for these tools. We have over 5500 companies as customer in 70+ countries, yet it is still a small market for book publishers, so the books you'll see regarding ORM tools are about entity framework (as MS publishes that) and to a lesser extend Nhibernate. If you still want to see prove we even exist in the form of a 3rd party full blown book then it won't work, but you have to ask yourself what that really proves: it's not as if we don't exist, or that people don't use the tool, on the contrary. It only shows book publishers don't see it a valuable investment to publish a book about a toolkit which doesn't have a million users.
I don't make the rules here, if you want to remove the page because it doesn't match some (IMHO) skewed criteria, I can't stop you. I do however want to express that these rules don't really make much sense in this day and age where printed media is used less and less and websites, blogposts and even just pages on github are the sole source of information. In my humble opinion, the gist of the guidelines is that there should be some sort of credibility out there, i.e.: the product is still alive and the page isn't an ad, and what's said on the page is true. With products there's just one problem: even with published books, they intend to rehash the published material of the vendor of the product: the core source of what they'll say what the product can do is still the vendor's documentation, so in the end still the vendor.
I was and still am annoyed that our page is the only commercial ORM page up for removal, while the rest of the .NET commercial orm pages are left as-is, I have to give prove of the relevance and existence of my own work and everything that's been brought forward has either been ignored completely or shot down as irrelevant, without a single word why it would NOT prove anything while a book from, say, 2007 would, and last but not least, that no admin has stepped in and either gave any of it even a single thought and voted. So here we are, more than a week after the banner was put up, and nothing has been decided in the slightest. According to the guidelines, this whole matter should be decided in more or less a week. I now know the relist extends that period but there has been NO activity of any admin in the first week. Because all the items we and others have brought forward have been ignored or declared irrelevant, I don't see what another week of no participation of any admin would bring. --Otis Inf (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists, but those articles aren't currently under discussion, this one is. The inclusion criteria aren't meant as a means to determine the "value" or "worthiness" of a work, or even whether it is real, although the latter is definitely important. Furthermore, the guidelines don't in any way require printed sources, just reliable ones that are independent of the subject. LFaraone 16:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see the conversation getting back to the issue at hand. Otis Inf obviously has a conflict of interest (and the page has been largely added by Otis Inf, after an earlier page created by someone else had been deleted for some reason), but the question at the moment is about notability proven by third party sources, not the content of the page, and least of all the author. Nothing speaks better about the ability of people to maintain a neutral point of view, despite personal interest, than the similarity between the information on the current page and the review http://ayende.com/blog/4579/nhibernate-tooling-review-llblgen-pro-3-0 of LLBLGen Pro by Ayende Rahien, who worked on the competing product, NHibernate.
The suggestion for deletion has not been supported by anybody else, and was based on the mistaken belief that there was no third party source. I have provided 2 sources above that are WP:Reliable. Presumably that suffices for the purposes of this discussion? --Steven Kelly (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been more than a week after the second (and according to the Wikipedia rules, the final) re-enlistment and no comments have been brought forward. Isn't it so that the proposal is now officially voided and the page can stay? (that is what I understand from the wikipedia rules regarding proposal to removal). --Otis Inf (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but may I ask what the justification is for relisting it for the 3rd time? The rules clearly state (IMHO) that this isn't something one should do. It now looks like someone is pushing this till there's a consensus delete, otherwise it gets relisted: there was voting, it was not uniform for delete, the period of participating in the voting has long passed, and therefore the rules state that it then should not be deleted and the banner should be removed. Could someone please explain to me why the rules state something else than what's done here? Thanks. --Otis Inf (talk) 09:34, 28 December 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.
More