Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HammerDB

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ --WikiLinuz (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HammerDB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. All references are self-published. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Performance Evaluation and Benchmarking, Database Benchmarking and Stress Testing, and SQL Server 2019 Revealed. SL93 (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  2nd and 3rd sources are not reliable. Still too weak to have a standalone article. And passing mentions on technical/conference papers, books or low-tier journals do not establish notability. --WikiLinuz (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: Although little info exist about the subject itself, some sources include benchmarks, implementation analysis, and warehousing about the DB. So can pass as stub as of now. --WikiLinuz (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2024 (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.