Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H-Store

H-Store

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY. I have searched for better sources with Google and found nothing useful. It's possible this may become notable in the future, but for now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Msnicki (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: H-Store is quickly becoming the strongest reference for new database architectures. I don't think it's too soon to include an entry of this project on Wikipedia, since it has started in 2007, and will definitely be a relevant for future databases. I strongly recommend its entry on Wikipedia.eribeiro76 —Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: H-Store has been one of the most influential transaction prossecing system designs of the recent years. Many products (eg. voltdb) as well as academic research projects (eg. HyPer) are based on it. It definitely deserves an entry in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.211.229 (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I just rewrote this article to use less language from their website and add more meaningful citations (I am not affiliated with this project). This system is significant because it represents the beginning of a new wave of database systems, much like how MongoDB and those types of systems are part of the NoSQL wave. This is not a product like DBeaver. If you don't know the history of previous academic systems from this group, like C-Store, then you shouldn't be commenting.--UMD-Database (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This feels similar to the DBeaver page nominated for deletion yesterday in that there is not enough signifiance to it. At the moment I would argue that this would fail WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velinath (talk • contribs) 03:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agreed with User:UMD-Database (not affiliated, but familiar with the work and authors). H-Store is heavily cited in the literature of the "new wave of database systems" and its design is the inspiration for the well-known VoltDB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdbne (talk • contribs) 16:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: H-Store is heavily cited in the literature (>50 cites) and is part of many lectures. We use H-Store as one main part in our Lecture New Database Models at the University of Innsbruck. --Woolf44

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: By head count, this discussion should at this point be called a "keep" outcome. However, aside from the nominator, the six accounts and ips discussing this software product have amongst them a total of 37 edits, including the nine edits of the page creator. To my reading, the above assertions are pretty much a list of arguments to avoid in such discussions. I'm thinking we need eyes more experienced in policy and guidelines to broaden this discussion. BusterD (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possible merge Could merge with VoltDB, which is based on H-Store. There's a bit of coverage outside academic sources[1][2][3], enough that I'd favour merge rather than delete, but it's not very in-depth. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with Buster and would add that many of the references are hosted on a Brown website (one of the universities involved in development) and only a few are what we would consider outside sources. The article's well put together; but those who want to keep should be looking for outside sources that discuss the project. The ZDNET article is a start, but that article alone's not enough (it's more of a blog entry really). If the verdict is to delete I would suggest userfying it to the creator's page, letting them reintroduce it later if there's more widespread coverage. Shadowjams (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]