Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyrrho (RDBMS)

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrrho (RDBMS)

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

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

This page was speedily deleted as advertising, that was overturned at deletion review. A number of people wanted the article sent to AfD, so here it is. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. Hut 8.5 20:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging DRV participants: @Djm-leighpark:, @Hobit:, @RoySmith:, @Seraphim System:, @Cryptic:, @SmokeyJoe:, @Winged Blades of Godric:, @DGG:, @TonyBallioni:, @Lonehexagon:, @Atlantic306:, @Godsy:. Hut 8.5 20:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source that looks solid is the textbook, Database Systems: A Practical Approach to Design, Implementation, and Management. I was thinking that could qualify as, It is the subject of instruction at [...] universities or post-graduate programs, stated in WP:NSOFT. It turns out, however, that the authors of that textbook are both faculty at University of Paisley, which is now called University of the West of Scotland, which is where Pyrrho comes from. So, that's not an independent source. My own searching failed to come up with any good sources either. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability from independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Per above..Monterey Bay (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough RS for my liking - Not notable, as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything to convince me it's notable. Basie (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thankyou for the comments. My efforts in sourcing the Begg/Connolly book are currently on hold. I can understand I did not previously question possible questionable independence of that source, though the wide distribution of said book might make the question to be asked on Wikipedia about Pyrrho. The significance of the educational DBTechNet initiative do not appear to be appreciated here ... with Pyrrho bundled (probably) in the educational pack for ACID or OCC properties. However in total strictness UWS is associated as a partner in DBTechNet. Despite the developer appearing to be retiring ... which came to light to me during this nomination ... development by that person is likely to continue any we may yet be WP:TOOSOON. I had considered article content improvement but the loss or outside possibility theft means I am likely to forego that. I could also possibly use some search resources down Portsea on Monday ... but Portsea for me is always iffy. I have and am possibly considering a re-direct/merge ... though I know of no suitable existing target I would support ... attempting merge/redirect to Mimer SQL or VoltDB would be too disruptive to the target. I am quite likely to initiate some form of save on Sunday or Monday. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think its great you have done research... but for the average wikipedian who doesn't know the area, we really need independant sources that establish the notability of the subject matter, so articles, books, etc talking about it in a manner that shows its notable and important to its field. There are references here, but they don't qualify as that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is unlikely this article will survive unless further sources emerge. I have not chosen not too create a feasible redirect target at this point. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2018 (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.