- 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)
- Delete - no references listed, no reliable sources, nothing suggests any notability or that this is other than just another software tool.--Rpclod (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
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)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE- just because you can find some hits on Google doesn't make those sources relevant and worthwhile. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
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)