mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redis (dbms) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Redis_(dbms)

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The result was keep, as nominator has withdrawn. I note that a lot of the "keep" arguments are extremely weak and indeed might have backfired given the canvassing. Nonetheless, consensus, as determined by policy-based arguments among established editors, is to keep the article at this point. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redis (dbms)

[edit]
Redis (dbms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to verify notability in any reliable sources. -- samj inout 10:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to fix that section. Swillison (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort" feels relevant at this point Swillison (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think Redis is notable and important — I've heard of it, and I'm interested in learning more about it. I know a lot about CouchDB, so it'd be interesting to see some objective information about Redis. avi4now (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - One the major key-value stores; part of an important development in database technology. Definitely notable. Tnm8 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Redis is great and as amazingly fast as it claims. I used it for a recent project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.39.75 (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article in Linux Magazine confirms that coverage in reliable secondary sources does exist. A bit of research will undoubtedly turn up some more. 81.151.173.41 (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A very new open source project, likely to become more relevant leader in quickly developing, and increasingly important field. The Ohloh https://www.ohloh.net/p/redis page indicates a "Large, active development team" over a short [history]. Suggest removing possibly contentious performance claims and postponing deletion given this is an emergent topic and independent pages such as this are useful fora for gathering evidence against vested interests of large incumbent vendors -- User:psd —Preceding undated comment added 11:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Withdraw: Ok the article's improved, advertising's been removed and it's been tagged appropriately. Furthermore, a bunch of people seem to care about it so it's unlikely to end up being wikicruft... as such I'm withdrawing my nomination and we'll see where it goes from here. -- samj inout 18:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: BSD licensed free software (yes, I understand nom already withdrew) Samboy (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since the original nomination has been withdrawn, can we officially record the issue as closed for now, so the 'Candidate for Deletion' box can be removed? Tnm8 (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since there is still one delete vote besides that withdrawn by the nominator, an administrator will have to close it after a week passed since the nomination. Pcap ping 12:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I Google for the link http://code.google.com/p/redis/ I get 215,000 hits. No reason to doubt this software is notable. I look through the results of a search for "code" "Google" and "Redis" and I find over a hundred thousand hits. The one at Code Monkey seems notable.[5] Dream Focus 20:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and obvious keep. This is getting crazy with this deletion mania! This article is well cited to numerous prominent sources, and is well written about a notable project. LotLE×talk 21:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has been improved a good deal and yet there is still only one or two questionable references, hardly "well cited to numerous prominent sources". -- samj inout 00:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No inline citations, and only two references. Perhaps this DBMS is a challenger for MySQL, but there is no way to tell from this article. Supporters should include at least three inline citations in the article, and not just mention them in this discussion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While AfD is not cleanup, an AfD may be an incentive for other editors to do a cleanup. This happens fairly often when the article is tagged for rescue, as this article was, but not always. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2010 (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.