Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DbVisualizer: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 28:
:Wikipedia is, ironically, considered an unreliable source by its own standards. So what? It does not follow that verifiability should go down the drain. [[User:Tigraan|Tigraan]] ([[User talk:Tigraan|talk]]) 10:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
* Hello all. I'm creator of the article discussed above. The reason of creating it was following: I have searched for alternatives for DbVisualizer since I work this program heavily every day, and I was researching if there are other tools with comparable features. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's list of SQL tools wasn't listing DbVisualizer. So I have added it as I know it's functionality and I'm sure, that the tool must be in comparison list as one of most powerful ones. I have no idea why it is still not mentioned. Unfortunately I'm not an expert in Wikipedia bureaucracy so all these rules with references, notability, etc are too hard to understand. I wasn't even able to upload a screenshot because of too much effort get through all the rules. I don't mind if the article will be removed due to rule violation. I'm not a developer of this product, just user. However I'm convinced, that the tool must be at least present in the comparison table.--[[User:ArtemGratchev|ArtemGratchev]] ([[User talk:ArtemGratchev|talk]]) 13:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
::[[User:ArtemGratchev|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.--[[User:Rpclod|Rpclod]] ([[User talk:Rpclod|talk]]) 14:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
| |||