The result was delete. The keep rationales are both unconvincing and articles need to have significant coverage in reliable sources, so yes, the extent to which the sources discuss the subject is important. / ƒETCH COMMS / 00:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Article is about a software suite, but does not list any reliable sources. I can't find any sources beyond press releases and self-published material. TN X Man 11:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply
absence of references and proper citations have been addressed. There are citations in a proper format now.
The discussion has shifted towards reliability of sources. According to the WP:RS Wikipedia guideline the article “should be based on reliable, published sources”. Questionable sources are described as having “poor reputation” or “self-published”. The sources of references on this article are from books published by O'Reilly Media, Springer Science+Business Media, SAMS Publishing. Neither of them can be described as of poor reputation or self-published. All of them are well known, independent international publishers. (Please refer to the corresponding Wikipedia articles dedicated to these publishers ). So what is the ground for saying the referenced books are “non-notable”? On contrary they are notable because published by notable agencies. On my opinion the article should stay because it complies with the Wikipedia policies in full. -- 71.172.113.130 ( talk) 23:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
In this particular case the sources speak about Aqua Data Studio in the same way they speak about other database tools. Check some of them : SQLPro SQL Client, TOAD (software), DatabaseSpy, DbForge Studio for MySQL, Database Deployment Manager, DatabaseSpy . All of them and many other are similar Wikipedia articles about very similar data base tools. Shall we delete all of them or shall we follow the Wikipedia policy and keep those articles in compliance? We cannot judge the way or extent the _sources_ speaks about subjects. We can only judge the way _the article_ speaks about the subject. And the article must be based on reliable sources, that directly support the facts stated in this article. It this case the sources say that the subject of this article is a database tool with this specific set of functions, no more, no less. And the article says the same thing. There is no contradiction with the sources and this and only this fact is required by the policy. -- 71.172.113.130 ( talk) 16:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The keep rationales are both unconvincing and articles need to have significant coverage in reliable sources, so yes, the extent to which the sources discuss the subject is important. / ƒETCH COMMS / 00:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Article is about a software suite, but does not list any reliable sources. I can't find any sources beyond press releases and self-published material. TN X Man 11:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply
absence of references and proper citations have been addressed. There are citations in a proper format now.
The discussion has shifted towards reliability of sources. According to the WP:RS Wikipedia guideline the article “should be based on reliable, published sources”. Questionable sources are described as having “poor reputation” or “self-published”. The sources of references on this article are from books published by O'Reilly Media, Springer Science+Business Media, SAMS Publishing. Neither of them can be described as of poor reputation or self-published. All of them are well known, independent international publishers. (Please refer to the corresponding Wikipedia articles dedicated to these publishers ). So what is the ground for saying the referenced books are “non-notable”? On contrary they are notable because published by notable agencies. On my opinion the article should stay because it complies with the Wikipedia policies in full. -- 71.172.113.130 ( talk) 23:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
In this particular case the sources speak about Aqua Data Studio in the same way they speak about other database tools. Check some of them : SQLPro SQL Client, TOAD (software), DatabaseSpy, DbForge Studio for MySQL, Database Deployment Manager, DatabaseSpy . All of them and many other are similar Wikipedia articles about very similar data base tools. Shall we delete all of them or shall we follow the Wikipedia policy and keep those articles in compliance? We cannot judge the way or extent the _sources_ speaks about subjects. We can only judge the way _the article_ speaks about the subject. And the article must be based on reliable sources, that directly support the facts stated in this article. It this case the sources say that the subject of this article is a database tool with this specific set of functions, no more, no less. And the article says the same thing. There is no contradiction with the sources and this and only this fact is required by the policy. -- 71.172.113.130 ( talk) 16:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply