Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DbVisualizer

DbVisualizer

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)— ChristerW (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Perhaps you can point out some specific ones that have some substantial detail on DbVisualizer, and not just a trivial mention? I picked a few to check from those search results at random, but The Religious Traditions of Japan 500-1600 didn't have much detail. - MrOllie (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is more to it than Japanese religion. I've found a few, and am quite willing to scour for more if we're having a real discussion. http://thesisdatabankvisualisatie.googlecode.com/svn-history/r68/trunk/CaribouVisualisation/src/site/resources/Project.pdf is a Masters thesis about visualizing databases with the help of JPA (Java Persistence API) which is spot on re what DbVisualizer is about. The thesis is in Dutch, but is actually possible to read if you know English, German, and some Nordic languages. Next one is https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/ibanez_conrad_v_200908_ms.pdf, a Masters thesis about visualizing a genome database. In English, luckily. https://books.google.se/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lWO5VwKEftkC&oi=fnd&pg=PT9&dq=dbvisualizer&ots=ter1GkuOjC&sig=Txf0u08pqVnucAW0jfTo6U5FmWs&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=dbvisualizer&f=false leads to a formally edited and published book by database guru Ronald Rood, who writes favourably about DbVisualizer in a book that is mainly concerned about Oracle. https://books.google.se/books?id=lWO5VwKEftkC&lpg=PT9&ots=ter1GkuOjC&dq=dbvisualizer&lr&pg=PT353#v=onepage&q=dbvisualizer&f=false is the most interestiong mention of a total of eleven in the book. Apologies for the bulky URLs.

Are these references helpful? If yes, I'll happily look for more.ChristerW (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the number of references is impressive, their quality is not. I would like to emphasize that a mix of references where some fail to WP:INHERITED (a thesis about JPA that uses DbV but could have used any similar software), some are not independant (press releases), some are not reliable (blogs) and some are passing mentions is no substitute for even a single source that matches all criteria all of GNG. Special pleading ("but it is software, so there are less sources or sources of lower quality") ought to be discussed at the guideline level (e.g. WP:PRODUCT or WP:SOFTWARE though the latter one is only an essay).

Wikipedia is, ironically, considered an unreliable source by its own standards. So what? It does not follow that verifiability should go down the drain. Tigraan (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. --ArtemGratchev (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]