Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DbVisualizer: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→DbVisualizer: reply |
|||
Line 13:
Please note that while the company behind DbVisualizer is a commercial enterprise, the software is also available in a free version.[[User:ChristerW|ChristerW]] ([[User talk:ChristerW|talk]]) 15:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
: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 [[WP:RS|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 [[Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Google_test|by this essay.]]- [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 15:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
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 points 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". [[User:ChristerW|ChristerW]] ([[User talk:ChristerW|talk]]) 22:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
| |||