273:
potentially very useful for comparisons. I don't really agree with your characterisation of "unambiguous advertising". Of the three statements you cite, only the phrase "very wide range" strikes me as advertisational. The rest is information. For example, "on an event-driven, real-time, or regularly scheduled basis" describes what would be the three main triggering modes. (Disclosure/explanation: I used to work for
Sunopsis, before it was acquired by Oracle. I don't know anything about Pervasive Data Integrator. I assume I wrote the stub when I was researching these products and trying to find out what Sunopsis actually did...)
433:: The above discussion seems to relate to novelty not notability. If I harvest 100 carrots and find one that has grown two roots that look like a pair of legs, that may be novel and when I was a kid that was exciting to find but no wire service ever picked up the story to make it notable. However, the other comment made above motivates my interest in defining something called "obscure but notable." The wikipedia criteria concern the geograhy being more than local and coverage depth being sufficient to write a decent article. There is no criteria for absolute popularity AFAIK.
526:. one is important, this is not. this used to matter. that every product on the market is being written about, regardless of actual significance, is something wikipedia is failing to control. the standard now seems to be if two sentences appear in two magazines then VfD will keep the article. that criteria is crap and needs to end.
286:
But to me, these factors mean that it's a long shot that anything is going to appear in a useful, independent source about the software. And, any independent reviews are moreover going to be circulated among a tiny group of people with a professional interest in this kind of package. That kind of
272:
I think I've made this sort of comment before, but anyway. This class of software is limited, and consists of big expensive products used by big corporations. This, to my mind, gives them some kind of de facto notability. These products do not come and go every day. Having an article on each one is
336:
has come up before. That they're reliable is pretty much a given. But ultimately they're a consulting firm; their clients are their real editors. And their actual reports have less circulation than a hometown newspaper. Being covered in a
Gartner product comparison does not equal notability. -
301:
I disagree that this class of software will not be covered. There are specialist journals covering enterprise level software. Coverage in such places would establish notability. I don't know if that is the case here as I've not yet looked. --
478:
all the consultants I drink beer with know if a product puts the word "enterprise" in the literature it is a codeword for SUCK. this type of software has a limited audience - limited audience means it is not an encyclopedic subject matter.
454:, something closer to "historical significance" strikes me as what we should aim for. What I found searching for this product was mostly press releases, generally circulated without comment. The notice and recorded interest of
153:
496:- There are many topics that have a limited audience that are perfectly fine topics for Knowledge (XXG). A broad audience is not an inclusion criterion, and a limited audience is not an exclusion criterion. --
227:, no substantive coverage; the other references are to internal sites. Google News Archives seems to yield mostly press releases announcing new versions and casual mentions that the product was used.
320:
came out, comparing half a dozen or so of these products. Definitely a useful, independent source. Only problem: you had to pay to read it. A lot, from memory. Here's an interesting
114:
450:. "Popularity" is not needed; "notability" is the local jargon, but especially for commercial businesses and products, where seeking to use Knowledge (XXG) for free publicity is a
147:
209:
extracts, aggregates, replicates, transforms and loads data from disparate sources, including between very old legacy and mainframe data and applications and new systems....
351:
I agree. I would not use just eh fact of coverage in
Gartner as an indicator of notability as they will report on any company one of their clients makes a query about. --
247:
321:
287:
coverage, even if it exists, does not translate into notability. The more expensive, technical, or exclusive it is, the less likely it can achieve notability. -
87:
82:
91:
537:
Perhaps so, but you will note that I did find a couple of sentences in a couple of magazines and find it insufficient to justify including this topic. --
74:
199:
Essentially, this article is just a features list --- a mere sales brochure. It reads like unambiguous advertising, extolling the product's virtues:
458:
independent of the business is what would tip the scales: somebody else needs to have taken an interest in their crowing. This, I did not find. -
168:
135:
17:
384:
129:
546:
505:
467:
442:
422:
395:
360:
346:
328:
311:
296:
277:
261:
236:
56:
565:
36:
519:
125:
381:
78:
204:
can automate the integration of data movement tasks on an event-driven, real-time, or regularly scheduled basis....
438:
175:
564:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
531:
523:
484:
70:
62:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
317:
141:
451:
434:
193:
52:
220:
527:
480:
284:
This class of software is limited, and consists of big expensive products used by big corporations.
161:
405:
418:
386:, but this does not represent sufficient depth of coverage to establish notability for me. --
325:
274:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
224:
185:
463:
342:
292:
257:
232:
48:
542:
501:
391:
356:
307:
189:
414:
108:
459:
338:
288:
253:
228:
538:
497:
387:
352:
303:
333:
408:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
558:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
518:
in a long term view, nobody will care that wikipedia documented
104:
100:
96:
160:
413:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
282:I don't disagree a bit with your characterization:
174:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
568:). No further edits should be made to this page.
219:The only reference given in the article is to a
316:Yeah, while I was at Sunopsis, a report from
248:list of Software-related deletion discussions
8:
242:
246:: This debate has been included in the
214:has a very wide range of connectivity...
184:Contested proposed deletion. This is a
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
380:- Tons of press releases. I found
24:
223:, a routine announcement of an
1:
547:21:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
506:21:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
468:15:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
443:02:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
423:01:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
57:01:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
396:02:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
361:02:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
347:00:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
329:05:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
312:18:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
297:05:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
278:04:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
262:12:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
237:12:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
520:Elliptic curve cryptography
585:
524:Pervasive Data Integrator
71:Pervasive Data Integrator
63:Pervasive Data Integrator
561:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
196:software product.
186:promotional article
452:legitimate concern
318:Gartner Consulting
425:
264:
251:
576:
563:
412:
410:
252:
179:
178:
164:
112:
94:
44:The result was
34:
584:
583:
579:
578:
577:
575:
574:
573:
572:
566:deletion review
559:
476:ugh, enterprise
460:Smerdis of Tlön
435:Nerdseeksblonde
403:
339:Smerdis of Tlön
289:Smerdis of Tlön
254:Smerdis of Tlön
229:Smerdis of Tlön
121:
85:
69:
66:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
582:
580:
571:
570:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
528:SchmuckyTheCat
511:
510:
509:
508:
481:SchmuckyTheCat
473:
472:
471:
470:
427:
426:
411:
400:
399:
398:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
266:
265:
217:
216:
211:
206:
182:
181:
118:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
581:
569:
567:
562:
556:
548:
544:
540:
536:
535:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
507:
503:
499:
495:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
486:
482:
477:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
446:
445:
444:
440:
436:
432:
429:
428:
424:
420:
416:
409:
407:
402:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
382:
379:
376:
375:
362:
358:
354:
350:
349:
348:
344:
340:
335:
332:
331:
330:
327:
323:
319:
315:
314:
313:
309:
305:
300:
299:
298:
294:
290:
285:
281:
280:
279:
276:
271:
268:
267:
263:
259:
255:
249:
245:
241:
240:
239:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
221:press release
215:
212:
210:
207:
205:
202:
201:
200:
197:
195:
191:
187:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
119:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
54:
50:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
560:
557:
493:
475:
474:
456:other people
455:
447:
430:
404:
377:
283:
269:
243:
218:
213:
208:
203:
198:
194:non-consumer
183:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
45:
43:
31:
28:
225:acquisition
190:non-notable
148:free images
49:Beeblebrox
322:blog post
522:but not
431:Comments
415:Tim Song
406:Relisted
188:about a
115:View log
494:Comment
448:Comment
334:Gartner
326:Stevage
324:, btw.
275:Stevage
270:Comment
154:WP refs
142:scholar
88:protect
83:history
46:Delete.
378:Delete
126:Google
92:delete
169:JSTOR
130:books
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
543:talk
539:Whpq
532:talk
502:talk
498:Whpq
485:talk
464:talk
439:talk
419:talk
392:talk
388:Whpq
383:and
357:talk
353:Whpq
343:talk
308:talk
304:Whpq
293:talk
258:talk
244:Note
233:talk
162:FENS
136:news
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
53:talk
176:TWL
113:– (
545:)
534:)
504:)
487:)
466:)
441:)
421:)
394:)
359:)
345:)
310:)
295:)
260:)
250:.
235:)
192:,
156:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
55:)
541:(
530:(
500:(
483:(
462:(
437:(
417:(
390:(
355:(
341:(
306:(
291:(
256:(
231:(
180:)
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
120:(
117:)
111:)
73:(
51:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.