Neo4j

Neo4j (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

fails the WP:GNG Polarpanda (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Got some conference play: http://en.oreilly.com/oscon2009/public/schedule/detail/8364 --Cybercobra (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even if "conference play" conferred notability outside the trade, it seems clear that the presentation was made by company staff. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, but my guess is they didn't let every Tom, Dick, and Harry give a presentation, some vetting was probably involved. Thought admittedly I didn't look deeply into it to verify that. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. NBeale (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if a single presentation at a single conference had something to do with notability it would still be a single source. We want to see multiple sources. The vetting involved in many conferences is often paid sponsorships or just paying to use the conference room. There is no notability presented here. Miami33139 (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I just updated the page to make it comply better with Wikipedia standards, and at least give some hints regarding notability. The Neo4j team never paid anything to get accepted at conferences, and you can't even apply for presenting at QCon and JAOO, they invite interesting community projects. Neo4j has been presented at more than 10 conferences, also by people that are not part of the team. Nawroth (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep neo4j is notable: http://news.oreilly.com/2008/07/neo4j-a-different-kind-of-data.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.85.173 (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks like a blog to me. Polarpanda (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Conference presentations are not independent of the topic, so if you are using them as a test of notability (which does seem reasonable) you aren't following the GNG. Polarpanda (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's no question this is a notable project. It's been under development for many years, is very well known in the NoSQL community. They have just received $2.5M in funding, which is notable in and of itself and which was widely reported (e.g. http://www.techcrunchit.com/2009/10/27/neo-technology-commercializes-next-generation-graph-based-database/). The CEO has also attended and spoken at the invitation-only O'Reilly Foo Camp. Foo Camp is independent of the topic of databases, or any particular technology. To be invited is a high honor and mark of excellence. Tim O'Reilly is an advocate of Neo4j and its founder. Terrycojones (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • VC funding and reporting on it is routine business and isn't notable. This may be approaching notability, but it isn't there now. Miami33139 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can't fathom why anyone would consider deleting this reference. Neo4J represents a new and very fascinating alternative to conventional data stores that MUCH better fits the real world. Part of the challenge the technology faces is awareness, and Wikipedia represents a great location for knowledge sharing in the area of graph model database and specific technologies (and their histories/origins/status) that implement these very exciting approaches to a problem that most people do not even know they have, because they follow the herd into RDBMS-land or Hadoop-ville. I can only assume that those desiring to delete these entry have commercial/competitive reasons to do so. Let the world know about Neo4J!!! RickBullotta (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • WP:VALINFO --Cybercobra (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's any commercial/competitive reasons behind the request to delete the page. It's only people trying to ensure high quality for Wikipedia, which is fine with me. I just happen to disagree regarding the notability of Neo4j. Nawroth (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Neo4J seems to be a very interesting technology, one of which I intend to recommend to my government clients. They also received some very good publicity at the NoSQLEast Conference in Atlanta GA (https://nosqleast.com/2009/#speaker/eifrem) CScyphers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC). This template must be substituted.[reply]
• Keep If Graph (data structure) are valid concepts, so should graph databases be, enabling the modeling and usage of graphs in production systems. Neo4j is the most widely known and used real Graph DB with real ACID. It is solving a big number of real-life problems that otherwise just stay in Academics and and research projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerthirst123 (talk • contribs) This template must be substituted.
• Just want to add that Neo4j was mentioned in the NoSQL section of the article InfoWorld's top 10 emerging enterprise technologies. Nawroth (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That's quite good, but it still doesn't pass the GNG. Perhaps info on Neo4j can be added to the list at NoSQL. Polarpanda (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There's one thing I don't really get regarding the request to delete the Neo4j page. I've looked into the Wikipedia pages of a few other NoSQL projects, and according to Wikipedia standards they all show different problems. Some of them are tagged for one or more deficiencies, while others are not. But not a single one is tagged for deletion, only for improvement. So I'd be happy to know what makes Neo4j stand out among pages like Redis, MongoDB, Mnesia, Cassandra, Chordless, Voldemort, Hypertable, HBase, Db4o and make it considered for deletion and not improvement! Actually the NoSQL page has its issues as well, the coverage that is independent of the topic has to be minimal and there's almost no references. Nawroth (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a volunteer project and somebody saw this one and marked it. That is the way Wikipedia works. Unless someone is on purpose browsing this topic looking for problem articles, the others will remain un-noticed until somebody else sees it and either fixes it or nominates it. You are a volunteer too. You can tag for fixing or nominate these articles when you see them. Miami33139 (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • My point was more about pages getting tagged differently. Sure the Neo4j page needs a lot of work, references need to be put in place etc. But what would make the Neo4j page a hopeless case (per the deletion guidlines) while the others I listed are not? That would be very interesting to know. Nawroth (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; other similar articles have no to little bearing on the deletion of an article. As explained, the nominator just happened to choose to nominate this one particular article; one of the acknowledged shortcomings of Wikipedia is that its policies are not uniformly enforced (again, due to the volunteer nature of the project), hence why they aren't all up for deletion (though they likely don't all deserve deletion). --Cybercobra (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Added more material to the external articles page, especially academia stuff. Added more projects to the list of open source projects using Neo4j. Both pages are linked from the Neo4j wikipedia page, and both are work in progress. Nawroth (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think any of those things on the external articles page count as reliable sources? Polarpanda (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd highlight the works by G. Tylissanakis, Y. Cotronis and by Jan-Willem van Dam and Damir Vandic. The first one is a published paper and both assess Neo4j as part of their projects. They are also independent from the Neo4j team: as a matter of fact i just found out about these two yesterday. Regarding the articles by Todd Hoff and Gavin Terrill there are publishing companies behind the web sites, and the articles are written by independent professionals on their teams; but I don't know exactly how to rate them as sources in this context. Among developers both High Scalability and InfoQ (where the articles were published) have a good reputation as sources. Nawroth (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just look at all these smelly WP:SOCKs. Its wonderful that all the fans of this software program have showed up to show their support, but unfortunately significant coverage from reliable third party publications is virtually non-existent, meaning this fails our general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]