Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DaDaBIK

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DaDaBIK

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

DaDaBIK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software release. Only citations are to primary sources, youtube, and to passing mentions stating that this software is used by a specific university. ST47 (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Despite the flood of obviously-canvassed comments which have been haphazardly thrown onto this page, no additional references to reliable secondary sources have appeared. As a summary, we have 10 links to the website itself, a github repo, 4 youtube videos, and 3 websites that each contain a single mention stating that they use this product. There is no significant coverage in secondary sources whatsoever. ST47 (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are 34 editors against the deletion so far and no comments in favor (except ST47's one). I think some comments in particular clearly describe how important this software has been in various contexts. It seems this has no relevance for the decision though, so I am not sure why a discussion for deletion has been started. I feel sad when I read "comments which have been haphazardly thrown onto this page": people spent time and energy to write those comments, express their opinion, actively contribute to this discussion and in turn to the quality of Wikipedia. Discussions should be one of the principle who guide Wikipedia but it seems the comments have been ignored, superficially evaluated and not taken into consideration. Furthermore, I have received a warning related to a Sockpuppet investigations on my account, so I guess someone thinks I have used multiple accounts to write these comments. Really? Anyone who knows a bit of my history and my level of commitment knows that I would never even think to do something like that. I am pretty sure you have all the technology means to assess that the comments below are not mine (except one). Ugeeeen (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's all nice and dandy, but this is not a vote, and 34 "editors" who clearly are only here for one purpose and who fail to cite any relevant Wikipedia policy, and which were obviously canvassed here, is not worth much, beyond suspicion as to the motives of said "editors". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON by canvassed users is still BLUDGEON and disruptive.

Hello. I don't agree with the fact that DaDaBIK is not-notable software. It was one of the very first no-code/low-code platform (first public release: 2001, ~20 years ago); considering the importance of this market nowadays, in my opinion - even just for historical reasons - it should be on Wikipedia. Its Wikipedia page has been here and regularly updated since 2011. Apart from the historical reasons, DaDaBIK is still relevant today, more than ever, with thousands of customers all over the world and a community that has produced almost 20k messages in its forum. About its use by Universities: Universities have been used DaDaBIK a lot for several aims (internal admin tools, research purposes, teaching), sometimes it's hard to give a proof of all these uses because in the vast majority of the cases, we are talking about internal processes/tools; however, If you check Google Scholar for "dadabik", you will get lots of entries and this should suggest the fact that is notable in the academic world. I can try anyway to improve the page. Thanks. Ugeeeen (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I have to agree with the rest here as the chairman of Asparna research center for software. Our student researchers are using DaDaBik for several years with good results. We feel it fills an important gap between heavyweight prototyping and the manual tedious work of programming from scratch. It is definitely important in the NGO/NPO, Educational and Governmental spaces where budgets are slimmer. We hope there is no real reason for this deletion as we think it is substantial software, and definitely not non-notable (I would advise marketing it harder though!) -- All the best, Etamar, 7pm August 27 2021 (UTC)

Hi. We have been using DaDaBIK for several years and our trainees are able to develop their own applications in a few days. This is a great software and we do not agree with the deletion.— 94.31.90.86 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. I also do not agree that DaDaBIK is not-notable software. We have been using it for several years. We are a small museum with limited budget, and it ideally suits our needs. It is easy to set up and to use. Software can only be developed if it has a user base that warrants the development work, and in order for people to find out about it, it needs publicity, and Wikipedia is an ideal way of getting that. Please reconsider the suggestion to delete this from Wikipedia.— 77.75.110.165 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:42, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

I don't think DaDaBik is a non-notable software. I am one between thousands of users of this great software and I think the page in Wikipedia can help people know more about it after a search of Google, if they, like me, are allways going to Wikipedia in order to know more about something. Celson Aquino, 08:42, 27 August 2021 (GMT -3)— 177.82.223.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:44, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

Dadabik is unique and useful. I did a survey of similar software and Dadabik is the best of the bunch.— 73.65.21.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:29, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

Please, don't delete this software. It is GREAT. — 179.98.157.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:49, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

Keep him, please.— Samir Candido (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:54, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

Don't delete it, this is software used by many. I was looking for this software for 5 years and never found it until recently.— Dhjhendriks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed. Dadabik is used by many people and companies, I am not sure why deletion is necessary and seems to contradict the Wiki spirit.— 66.186.210.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I don't agree that DaDaBik is non-notable. I use this software as the primary front end for online databases and find it the most useful of any software I use.

I'm a former user of DaDaBIK. I'm also against the deletion of the entry. Rather, I would like to see the entry further modified (by third parties) and expanded by pointing to other no-code/low-code CRUD platforms (possibly with a comparison page). Danzac64 (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DaDaBik is a notable software. There are just a few CRUD solutions as complete as DaDaBik. Please do not remove it.— 170.250.194.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:12, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

I do not agree with this deletion! As a supporter and donor of Wiki for many years now I feel this is entirely inappropriate. I have used this software for many years as a database front-end software to several databases in the not-for-profit sector. It’s designed for its ease of use by non-programmers and used by thousands across the World. It was so unique when it appeared 20 years ago ….and still is to this day. Its creator Dr. Eugenio Tacchini has spent many years improving and building on the application and it has a huge following. I personally believe that the reason the Wiki team have come to this conclusion is because of its perceived low-profile. Probably because it’s not sold off the shelf as a finished product, but as a software which underpins one. Its popularity, function and importance is therefore hidden from obvious view. I fully understand Wiki’s researchers for coming to this initial conclusion, and I know we have no real say in this matter…..but I respectfully request this decision is reversed so that Wiki can continue to make the World know about Dr Tacchini and his team’s incredible software and the valuable contribution they make to society as a whole. Please seriously reconsider this decision.— MarcLow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Disagree with the delete suggestion and the offered reason. DaDaBIk has been around a long time. It is stable and is continually developed and maintained. As noted by others, it is used by many thousands of institutions and individuals as a low-code front end to SQL-like databases. It long ago made the transition from free software to paid, which means the market finds value in it. You can find it listed in many online sources for database front ends, such as https://www.gadgetxplore.com/database-management-tools/ to take one example.Dh10~enwiki (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have been using Dadabik for many years. Deleting it from Wikipedia would be a shame.— 2003:c3:c721:fb00:a815:1016:e81f:a014 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:27, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

I use DaDaBIK for commercial purposes. I can confirm that it is a notable software. It should have an article on Wikipedia.— 195.111.130.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:30, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

Hello all. IMHO Dadabik is a notable software and i think it's relevant to give it a page on Wikipedia ! Dadabik lives for almost 20 years and it does not have serious competitors as a database front-end software. New versions are released on regular basis and use newest technology. I use Dadabik for commercial purposes too. It's quite important for end user customers to see we use notable software as it has its own Wikipedia page ;-) 80.12.85.16 (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)— 80.12.85.16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Dadabik is used software and still being maintained so it should not be deleted — 62.251.113.42 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:49, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

As an IT consultant, I have used Dadabik for numerous projects spanning multiple Fortune 500 companies over two decades. It is definitely worthy of a Wikipedia page, more so that most of the so-called celebrities that have a page IMHO. I suspect there are few external mentions/links if, like me, most are not in a position to disclose proprietary information; ergo, cannot link to the apps we create. Dadabik is notable software, without a doubt. Sounds to me like there's and admin who needs to do better research.— Grimblefritz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:14, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

Lectori Salutem, Following and affirming previous editors, DaDaBik is excellent software and deserving to be in Wikipedia. Bosch Bastiaan (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)— Bosch Bastiaan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I volunteer for a small community museum and we use Dadabik to catalogue all our exhibits and documents. We looked at a few other museum software packages but found Dadabik is by far the easiest to develop and use. It is notable software, up to date and widely used. Please don't delete the Wikipedia page.— 203.206.17.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

DaDaBiK has been used by us for many years and is an important asset for many of our projects including student/course management, COVID-19 sample management, inventory management, and content management. It is a highly versatile software with an active community, regular updates and developments. We strongly disagree that DaDaBik is a non-notable software, contrary DaDaBiK is an excellent tool for database development, teaching, and practical applications.Stefan.taube (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)— Stefan.taube (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

DaDaBik is certainly not "non-notable" software. It should certainly remain on Wiki to facilitate more people finding out about this excellent tool for integrating websites and databases. It's also updated regularly and I don't really understand why it's deletion from Wikipedia is proposed.— 2001:bb6:aac7:e800:741e:c730:bfb9:a394 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:37, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

I can't understand why the article about DaDaBik should be deleted. I owe a lot of information about software to Wikipedia. And DaDaBik is certainly not one of the negligible applications. Tikita (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. DaDaBik is mature (~10 years old), reliable, used by thousands of applications and still actively supported. That doesn't necessarily translate to non-notable. It's still a solid tool for fast development and its reference should remain on Wikipedia. Cheers!— 2601:644:8900:2ba0:a40a:3f6:a9aa:ab41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:41, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

I'm an early adopter and we keep a couple of instances at the Semmelweis University in Budapest - one of the highest traffic cardiac centers in Europe. It has notable features and those who seek a solution for a PHP database frontend would find out that it offers even more nowdays. It has been actively developed, there is a responsive community one may access and rely on. My experience contradicts to the reason given for the intended removal. I strongly object against it.— 94.44.103.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:20, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

This is an active product regularly updated and used on the internet today.— 174.253.194.136 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:30, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

Please do not delete. My company has been developing websites using this software for over 10 years. It is a great platform for the developer with limited experience in PHP and Mysql who is interested in quickly setting up a website but in the process experiencing a learning development process and understanding of underlying principles involved. No other similar software has been apply to fulfill our requirements.— 2403:5800:5200:9fc:ed54:177d:e032:57e (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:17, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

To write that DaDaBik is non-notable says much about the writer and not much about DaDaBik. The writer's comments about citations may be correct, but a simple browser search would reveal the non-notable comment to be nonsense. The editor should clearly state what needs to be done - without uninformed editorializing. Constructive criticism is good. Unsupported conclusions are contrary to what wikipedia is all about. DaDaBik should retain its place in wikipedia.— 71.12.235.73 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:19, August 28, 2021 (UTC).

We considered many museum software packages and CMS products for image management when starting to digitise several hundred thousand images in the NZRLS archive, and selected DaDaBIK as a mature and well supported product to build from. It has the capability of customisation at multiple levels depending on technical skill, enabled the quick development of a prototype by importing a database and now has delivered a front-end package with straightforward multi-user access control and no annual fees. It's definitely notable software. LurkingKiwi (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple versions have been evaluated for vulnerabilities and are indexed by the US National Institute of Standards and Technologies [1]. An unimportant software package would not be subject to this kind of evaluation and scrutiny. In my opinion this subject meets notability criteria. Medmyco (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I retired as an Asst. Vice Chancellor at UCLA in charge of the campus-wide administrative information systems. I rely on Wikipedia to find background on the development history of products and companies I am considering. These days I am leading a project to develop a web site for my county's genealogical society and evaluated DaDaBIK and eventually purchased it for the society to host our large local records databases. I note that there is significant interest in the product among many other genealogical and historical societies as well. I have seen a lot less significant topics on Wikipedia pages than this one. Please do not remove it. Don Worth, Oxnard, CA

We have used DaDaBik for our business for at least a decade. It is not "non-notable" and should not be deleted from Wikipedia.

For many developers and business information systems planners, references to application generators is important. Not being a "significant" market product should not cause reference access to diminish for the sake of potential growth and business development.

Comment Could anyone provide just 2 (not more) best reliable sources (eg. reviews in published/online magazines, peer reviewed papers in good journals independent on the software authors)? I´m leaning to delete this one otherwise. Pavlor (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have added/fixed several external references to the "Popularity and notability" section, including a Google Scholar link where you can find many publications (also journals) discussing DaDaBIK. DaDaBIK has been featured in popular press as well, for example on PHP Journal (German paper magazine, no more active) and PC Professionale (Italian magazine, still active), during the next few days I will try to add correct references for these as well. Ugeeeen (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could I ask only for best two of these sources to be linked/cited here for my (and others) convenience? Pavlor (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With "here" you mean here in the discussion and not in the article itself, right? Yes, I can do that, but I need time to go through all of them. I will do it within the next few days.
I want to add that I have just read what Grimblefritz wrote on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ugeeeen and I think he/she made a very good point about how to evaluate the notability of a software. I invite everybody to read it.Ugeeeen (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikipedia has its own somewhat arcane rules: eg. WP:N and WP:RS for start. Arguments like those used by Grimblefritz have next to no value in discussions like this. Notability issue aside, without reliable source, we can´t even write an article (WP:V). Pavlor (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above, multiple versions are indexed by NIST which is pretty much the gold-standard for notable software. I consider that more of a notability credential than a mention in the back pages of Wired. Medmyco (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also here are two links to solid peer reviewed literature citing DaDaBiK: The first reference is from a computer science journal and lists it as a first suggested development tool, comparing a few others packages to it [2]; and the second provides an example of its integration in the study of plant chromosome number [3]. Medmyco (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As these sources aren´t directly available, I need some time to access them (few days at most). Before I look at them, could you please summarize how much space is devoted to DaDaBIK? If it is only a mere mention or a sole short paragraph, these sources probably would not suffice to establish notability of the article subject. Pavlor (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pavlor, I looked at "Chromosome numbers of the flora of Germany" and all it says is "we used DaDaBik". So I suppose that means something out there in the world, but it doesn't mean much here. Medmyco, what we need is secondary sources that discuss the topic. So that other article might be something but this isn't. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, the other article evaluates four applications using "The analytic hierarchy process". "In this study, four alternative database development tools are evaluated: DaDaBIK, DataFlex, Oracle Application Express, and FileMaker" [4] so yes, it discusses the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugeeeen (talk • contribs)
Thanks. I just browsed the other article (Evaluating distributed IoT databases...). I think it could be an useable source (impact factor is 3.734 and the article author seems to be independent of DaDaBIK). However, as it is a simple comparison of 4 products, there is not much space devoted to DaDaBIK itself (one to two short phrases per evaulation criterion - there are three of them - few tables and a mere mention in conclusions). If this is the best source we got, I don´t think this is enough for a stand-alone article. I will try to find some suitable redirect target. Pavlor (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, It's a journal, independent, they evaluated software alternatives using a framework. Among all the possible options for database application builders (if you google that, you'll probably find hundreds of options) they chose four tools, including DaDaBIK, and they evaluated those four tools, the whole article is about this evaluation. This should be enough according to WP:N. I have checked about half of the platforms available in No-code_development_platform, they have a stand-alone article and none of them have journal sources.
As noted by Medmyco, its presence in the National Vulnerability Database of the National_Institute_of_Standards_and_Technology is also a pretty solid reference [5].
Finally, if you are looking for popular press, please consider PHP Journal (German paper magazine about PHP and Web development, as many other IT-related paper magazines, no longer published), there is an in-depth review about DaDaBIK that consists of six pages in the Nov/Dec 2010 issue.Ugeeeen (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quality of coverage is the issue here. Few phrases in one source can´t show notability of the article subject. However, that magazine article you mentioned looks promising, could you provide more precise citation (author, publisher, issn)? Offline sources are fine, if there are more of this kind, I think there is still a hope for this article. Pavlor (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pavlor, I can add more sources but I have the feeling that some comments have been ignored so I would like to summarize what we have so far:
  • two editors (including me) pointed out that the presence in the National Vulnerability Database of the National_Institute_of_Standards_and_Technology is a solid source and proof of notability. Do you agree? If not, why?
  • When you said "Few phrases in one source can´t show notability of the article subject.", if you are referring to "Evaluating distributed IoT databases...", I don't think this is true. If we want to count the occurrences of the word "dadabik" in the article, they are 24, but does it make sense to evaluate the coverage counting the number of words/sentences? The important thing is that it's not a minor mention, the whole article is about using a framework to evaluate those four softwares, isn't it clear to any expert of the field that they have been chosen also because of their notability?
  • The PHP Journal reference: Carsten Möhrke, "Ersteller eines Datenbank-Frontends mit Dadabik" (PHP Journal, issue Nov/Dec 2010, neue mediengesellschaft ulm mbh). Here [6] you can find a temporary picture of the cover that shows that the article about DaDaBIK was one of the cover stories
  • PC Professionale is one of the leading IT-related paper magazines in Italy (founded in 1991 and still available). Here are two articles about DaDaBIK: [7] and [8]
  • html.it is one of the leading web magazines about Web development in Italy (founded in 1997 and still available), here are an article by Andrea Ferrini [9] and here are two articles by Claudio Garau [10] [11]
  • Linux.com, "Create your Web database applications with DaDaBIK", short article about DaDaBIK [12]
  • Louie Andre, DaDaBIK Review on financesonline.com [13]
There are for sure other sources and I haven't had the time to go through all the google scholar records, but I think this is already more than enough to prove notability. Ugeeeen (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My short review of your sources:
  • presence in the National Vulnerability Database of the National_Institute_of_Standards_and_Technology - a mention is a mention (nothing for notability in the Wikipedia sense)
  • If we want to count the occurrences of the word "dadabik" in the article - there is not much real content about the article subject (the only criterion that really matters here)
  • first PC professionale - short news (useable in the article, but adds next to nothing to notability)
  • second PC professionale - another short news (well, somewhat longer than the previous)
  • first html.it - short describtion
  • second html.it - short news
  • third html.it - another short news (well, somewhat longer than the previous)
  • Linux.com - ultra short news with a link to external site with user submited content (note there is no info about staff or editorial policy, not a good sign anyway)
  • financesonline.com - is this even a RS? Phrases like "Create a Listing for Your Product" or "Why write guest posts for us? You can tell people about your company and promote your brand" certainly raise some questions. Sure, this review was written by a staff writer, but I can´t take this page as an independent source. Smells like a paid advert site.
Conclusion: Only real source showing notability of the article subject is the 6 page article in the PHP Journal, which we have no access to (well, I will try to find it in library). We need multiple good sources to establish notability of the article subject. Pavlor (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with most of your points. I have the feeling that you just want to delete the page, no matter what:
  • financesonline.com "smells like a paid advert site". I don't know how it smells, but this article is absolutely not a paid article, an adv or similar. It's pretty evident if you check the bio of the author "B2B & SaaS market analyst and senior writer for FinancesOnline". Do you really think that a paid review would get, as a score, only 6.2? This would make no sense to anyone.
  • Linux.com that's not "user submitted content", for what I see, the author is, well an "author"[14]
  • html.it, pc professionale and all the articles you consider short. Two of them are absolutely not short considering the context. Take [15] for example: the "story" about version 4.5 was the introduction of this locking mechanism and the license change. The article entirely covers this story. Can you elaborate more about how you measure how long an article should be? I can't find detailed information on this, what I read is that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention", the clear example of trivial mention that Wikipedia makes is - in an article about Bill Clinton - the mention of the band where Bill Clinton played in High school. I think that's very different respect to what we have with the html.it article I mentioned. Do you agree?
  • "Evaluating distributed IoT databases...": strongly disagree, the article reviews several aspects of the subject
  • PHP Journal: the fact you can't access the article shouldn't be used as an argument in favor of deletion. I have posted a temporary picture of the cover, I can post a temporary pic with the relevant part of the index, I obviously won't post the entire article. Ugeeeen (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If my intention was to delete this article, I could simply write: "Delete Not enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability of the article subject". Instead, I´m trying to find good sources among those you posted (and no, I have nothing against PHP Journal, I wrote above it is a good source, but one source alone can´t show notability of the article subject). From your reply above, it is obvious it was a waste of my time. Note I think there may be other sources like the PHP Journal one and the article subject may be notable enough for an article, but I´m in no mood to look further. Hope this ends as no consensus, because many regular editors would not take lightly such a horrible canvassing etc. and would be inclined to "vote" delete unless really convincing sources are presented. Pavlor (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another, additional source [16] Ugeeeen (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever canvassed the multiple editors who contributed here and said, essentially, "keep it, it's a good product" or words to that effect really did everyone a disservice. There are few things that serious Wikipedia editors hate more than a flood of "yeah sure keep it" from people who've never contributed. And it seems to me that here we have a few dozen geeks (you know, IT-computer-database savvy people) who are all rushing to say "yes keep it", and none of them, including the creator, ever took the time to acquaint themselves with our rules and policies and guidelines--but you are exactly the kind of people who should know how to navigate websites. The current version of the article doesn't have a single link which could be called a "secondary source", never mind an independent one. Seriously, a Google search? It doesn't matter that it's a Google Scholar search: it's the equivalent of "Google it", the standard answer on Facebook to any serious query. I am sure y'all can do better than that, but so far, in this last decade, you haven't done it for this article. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the involvement in bludgeoning, but sincerely my comment was not intended to do this (and I think my comment was not simply stating that the software is good and shouldn't be deleted). I'm not connected to Ugeeeen and I'm not using DaDaBIK anymore (I used it for a Diploma Thesis of a student of mine long time ago). I understand very well the reasons of the admins (looking for popularity and notability of the software; looking for independent or secondary sources) and I don't argue on this. I would like anyway to add a tiny contribution to the discussion mentioning that also FileMaker, Oracle APEX and DataFlex (i.e. the DB handling tools evaluated in the paper [17] together with DaDaBIK) are all entries in Wikipedia. HTH Danzac64 (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going lean into deleting but given the ambiguity in the discussion would appreciate if users could make clear their views on the article's notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 23:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have provided several additional reliable and independent sources (see my comments above). I'll add this additional one: a guide published by the Universitat de Barcelona [18]. About 7 pages of the guide are dedicated to DaDaBIK. There are still a lot records in Google scholar to check. I would also like to point out that the notability of the software (and related proposals for deletion) should not be based on the sources currently mentioned in the article WP:NEXIST. Reading the very first message, I think this is exactly what happened with the current proposal: deletion nomination for non-notability based on the current version of the article. Ugeeeen (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make the whole discussion more readable, I'll summarize the references found so far here:
  • Carsten Möhrke, "Ersteller eines Datenbank-Frontends mit Dadabik" (PHP Journal, issue Nov/Dec 2010, neue mediengesellschaft ulm mbh). Temporary picture of the cover: [19] 6 pages dedicated to DaDaBIK.
  • Alelaiwi, Abdulhameed. "Evaluating distributed IoT databases for edge/cloud platforms using the analytic hierarchy process." Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 124 (2019): 41-46. "In this study, four alternative database development tools are evaluated: DaDaBIK, DataFlex, Oracle Application Express, and FileMaker"
  • Iglesias, Domingo Iglesias Sesma, and Ernest Abadal. "Creació i publicació d'una base de dades relacional amb MySQL i DaDaBik." (2009). Material published by Universitat de Barcelona for the Database Administration students. 7 pages dedicated to DaDaBIK
  • PC Professionale (leading IT-related paper magazines in Italy): [20] and [21]
  • html.it (leading web magazines about Web development in Italy): [22] [23][24]
  • Louie Andre, DaDaBIK Review on financesonline.com [25]. The score assigned is 6.2/10, this makes obvious the fact the is not paid adv (someone suspected adv, that's why I am highlighting this)
  • Marco Fioretti, Linux.com, "Create your Web database applications with DaDaBIK", very short article [26]
  • Paule, Juraj, et al. "Chromosome numbers of the flora of Germany—A new online database of georeferenced chromosome counts and flow cytometric ploidy estimates." Plant Systematics and Evolution 303.8 (2017): 1123-1129.
  • Okunade, Emmanuel Akintunde. "Design and implementation of a web-based geotechnical database management system for Nigerian soils." Modern Applied Science 4.11 (2010): 36.
Someone said "a mention is a mention" and it's true, I agree, however considering the quality of the publications and the number of mentions, I think this last point could still be taken into consideration, together with all the other sources, to prove notability.Ugeeeen (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User guides and manuals are primary sources and they're not useful for writing an encyclopedia, because WP:NOTMANUAL. This being used by scholars as a common tool is not a good argument either if you can't find WP:GNG-compliant sources to back it up. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTMANUAL says that Wikipedia is not a manual, not that guides cannot be used as a source. Furthermore, that guide is absolutely not a primary source (see also [27]). But apart form that, you are missing my point, what I wrote is that [28] can be used to prove notability, not necessarily as a source in the article, because - again - WP:NEXIST. Ugeeeen (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But what would you expect to get out of a manual, except non-encyclopedic information as to how to use the software? In either case, it would be a dubious source, since it's essentially self-published by whoever wrote the guide. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the previous comment you stated that such guide is a primary source and it's obviously not. I think you can extract some useful information from manuals and guides but the important thing is that there isn't any rule that prevents the use of guides and manuals as a source (in fact you can find manuals and guides as a source in other articles). Having said that, I think you are still missing the point, we are not discussing which sources to use in the article but if there are sources that prove notability WP:NEXIST. Actually, this work should have been done BEFORE the nomination for deletion, as explained in WP:BEFORE, regardless of the sources currently used in the article. Ugeeeen (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DaDaBIK&oldid=1049512715"