Wikipedia

Draft talk:SurrealDB

Latest comment: 3 days ago by StereoFolic in topic Source Assessment Table
Learn more about this page

Stub page

edit
Latest comment: 14 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ive created the page as a stub of the SurrealDB Company.

Will expand and add info of sourced meterial. I have read the deletion reasons in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SurrealDB but beleive SurrealDB does deserve a page on Wikipedia, given proper editing and sourcing.

The page will concentrate more on the company, not the product.

Discussions and help are welcome.

TagKnife (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Contested deletion

edit
Latest comment: 14 days ago13 comments4 people in discussion

This page should not be speedily deleted because Ive created the page as a stub of the SurrealDB Company.

Will expand and add info of sourced meterial. I have read the deletion reasons in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SurrealDB but beleive SurrealDB does deserve a page on Wikipedia, given proper editing and sourcing.

The page will concentrate more on the company, not the product. Adding on to this the page has significant interest and deserves constructive feedback, with proper editing and sourcing. Not disctructive by deleting the page.

https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-30&pages=SurrealDB --TagKnife (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

If the article isn't speedy deleted (which given its present secondary-source-free state would seem entirely appropriate), it will have to be draftified. Evidence of existence is not evidence of notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
At the current state the page should be recoginised as a stub. Im adding content as i find sources. But deleting the page because it has been previous deleted for other reasons doesnt help in any case.
There is interest in the company and the product I think capturing that infomation is important. It is a startup so there is not alot of sources out there. TagKnife (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
"It is a startup so there is not alot of sources out there" is a reason to not have an article. Read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
If there are not a lot of sources out there, then how do you know that "there is interest in the company and the product"? Wikishovel (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am a developer, and developers talk. And generally developers use UGC not news for their infomation as it is more technical and infomative than general news. TagKnife (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
TagKnife, please note that per the notability criteria, "memoirs or interviews by executives" cannot be used to establish notability. Which rules out both the TechCrunch article you have recently cited, along (obviously) with the FirstMark citation, which is nothing but a summary of TechCrunch. I would strongly advise you to put a little effort into learning relevant Wikipedia policy before wasting more time with this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
This might be a sticking point, but generally you cant get sources for fund raisers or aquasitions without an interview/comment from the CEO. Generally they want to talk about their acheivement.
Ive editted numerous articles with aquasitions/fund raisers and almost all of them include comments/interview with an executive. This hasnt been an issue before, TagKnife (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
On the point of the techcrunch article, there isnt another original source on the topic, all others cite techcrunch, I included the Firstmark post since they were the ones who invested the $6 million.
Ive replaced the firstmark post with another post from AppMaster. TagKnife (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
"there isnt another original source on the topic"? Thank you for unambiguously confirming that the subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
TagKnife, your edit history shows that almost all of your 275 edits were on the CityFibre page, which has many sources that aren't interviews. Have you edited under a different username before? Which article that you edited was kept despite having only interview sources? Are you getting paid to edit this article? Owen× ☎ 12:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are plenty of sources on the CityFibre page that includes interviews. Cite 3, 19, 22, - There were others from FT and a computer weekly but they have gone paywalled. Which should be removed since they cant be accessed.
No im not being paid, Im a developer that surrealdb recently caught my eye. TagKnife (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Are you being deliberately disingenuous, or do you genuinely not understand what is being said here? There is no policy against including sources that are interviews. The policy is about relying solely on such sources. CityFibre has many sources that aren't interviews, which means it meets our notability guidelines. Adding more sources that happen to be interviews does not detract from its notability. SurrealDB currently has no sources that aren't interviews. Claiming that you've seen interviews used on other articles doesn't really advance your argument. Owen× ☎ 13:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Source Assessment Table

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago23 comments4 people in discussion
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
  Appears to be an independent UK news magazine.   Appears to have no conflict of interests with SurrealDB   Covers their database technology significantly    
  media release   ""Increase Brand Awareness" in a linked advertising page, also claims to be used at Amazon, NVIDIA, HSBC etc which seems unreliable.      
  associated with investment – – Only two paragraphs   primary source related to fund raise  
  independent database information website   Appears to be generally reliable with editorial oversight, managed by Carnegie Mellon Database Research Group https://db.cs.cmu.edu/   Covers database features    
  Independent company with no affiliation to SurrealDB   Developer guide and documentation   Covers features of SurrealDB    


  appears to have advertising options on their website     passing mention –  
  Written by senior editor at techcrunch   generally reliable for the reporting of facts. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/techcrunch/ WP:TECHCRUNCH   covers company, fund-raise and technology extensively   Lean on yes, although the former appears to be made primarily from quotes.  


SurrealDB website, docs and announcements
   – Reliable in the context of developer docs, features, versions and uncontroversial product announcements and releases.      
  associated with theCube   https://siliconangle.com/about-us/ has editorial team   covers the company and vision    
  press release        
–   tech company blog      
  interview   interview      
  offers advertising services     passing mention –  


  not much info on their editorial policies   appears to be from brief read   covering their 1.0 launch    


  anyone can make edits to directory     passing mention    
  written by independent researchers   scholarly article   benchmarks surrealdb    


  independent review – bachelors thesis     —


  scholarly article   scholarly article   one brief mention and one more contextual and in-depth mention    


  has disclosure statement   has editorial policies, no advertising options   for Surrealist coverage    
  written by founder   dissertation      


Emison, J. (2023). Serverless as a Game Changer: How to Get the Most Out of the Cloud. Addison-Wesley Signature Series (Vernon). Pearson Education. p. 196. ISBN 978-0-13-739255-1. Retrieved 2024-05-27.
   independent writer   published by Pearson Education   significantly covers surrealdb and serverless aspects of cloud databases    
  research organisation   published by research organisation, analysed by their researchers   analyst by research analyst    
  Company details & filling history   Legally accurate filling – Routine company filing   primary source related company fillings  
  appears to support publishing articles   see before      
         

Mr Vili talk 04:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you really think that is an accurate evaluation of sources, I can only suggest you need to familiarise yourself with how the community actually interprets WP:RS. And I'd note that this article still suffers from the same problem it did at AfD (unsurprisingly, since it is still essentially the same article). It fails to make clear what it it is actually about. If it is about the software, only sources directly concerning the software can be used to establish notability. If it is about the company, it needs to demonstrate the notability of the company. Mashing two subjects together to try and somehow establish 'notability' between them is not going to work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@AndyTheGrump I don't understand your personal vendetta against every page I am involved with. Please get a life and stop being a toxic member of the community Mr Vili talk 19:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Failure to respond meaningfully to my comments noted. Improper use of talk page linked at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Cool Mr Vili talk 23:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
This table admits several sources are not reliable, so why are they still being used in the article? StereoFolic (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Because Mr Vili doesn't consider core Wikipedia policies apply to him, obviously. And needless to say, Mr Vili's assessment of sources is complete and utter bullshit. For example he claims that 'lightaquare.org' is a reliable source - this is a website for an entirely fictitious body describing itself as the 'Government of Lumina'. Lumina is an imaginary country (complete with a bogus 'university' no doubt created to sell equally bogus diplomas [1]). Mr Vili has an extensive history of using Wikipedia to promote such fictitious entities, including those he has had a direct interest in. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@AndyTheGrump please do not collapse the table, it clearly states it may reflect the views of a single editor. If you continue to be disruptive I will report you on ANI Mr vili talk 15:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you really want to draw further attention to your recurring abuse of Wikipedia article space as your own personal blog and self-promotion platform, go ahead. Though don't be surprised if the discussion them moves to ArbCom, where private information concerning conflicts of interest can be submitted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
You are free to do whatever, I have been repeatedly clear on the fact that I have no COI with SurrealDB - I am merely an enthusiastic user of it. Mr vili talk 15:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Because, they may not be reliable for WP:SIGCOV but may be otherwise reliable sources in the context of other uncontroversial information, or not used for the purposes of establishing notability. Mr vili talk 15:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The source assessment table above doesn't show familiarity with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It appears to be a reworking of this analysis presented by Alpha3031 at AfD:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Peyton, Antony (2022-07-21). "Tech Startup SurrealDB Goes Live with Serverless Cloud Database". eWeek UK. Retrieved 2024-01-19. Peyton, Antony (2021-09-29). "SurrealDB Keeps it Real with Serverless Cloud Database Launch". eWeek UK. Retrieved 2024-01-19.
   Appears to be derrived from quotes and other PR material – Skipped full assessment due to ORGIND and ORGDEPTH fails. Though, leaning no   Launch announcement falling under WP:ORGTRIV   Inherits ORGIND failure  
Barron, Jenna (2024-05-10). "SD Times Open-Source Project of the Week: SurrealDB". SD Times. Retrieved 2024-05-17.
   Seems like a media release again, but again, moot by the RS quickfail   First thing I notice here was the about page linking to D2 Emerge... We can't use a marketing mag whose primary purpose is to enhance your brand visibility among the most important influencers in IT today.      
Wiggers, Kyle (2023-01-04). "SurrealDB raises $6M for its database-as-a-service offering". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2024-01-19.
     WP:TECHCRUNCH, not one of the few exceptions   Funding announcement    
  Literally a press release     Launch announcement    
Wood, Anna. "London's tech scene gets a reboot". Startups Magazine. Retrieved 2024-01-19.
     Leaning no      
Šelmeci, Roman (6 Nov 2023). "SurrealDB, AWS DynamoDB and AWS Lambda". Sudolabs.
   Short circuit   Blogs aren't considered RS   At first glance    
"SurrealDB: Open source scalable graph database has big potential". devmio - Software Know-How. 2022-08-23. Retrieved 2024-01-19.
   Seems to be mostly quotes from the announcement   Same as above      
Citations to their own website
    
Team, TechRound (2024-04-25). "Meet Tobie Morgan Hitchcock, CEO & Co-Founder Of SurrealDB". TechRound. Retrieved 2024-05-17.
   Interview with no secondary content        
Vrcic, Tea (2024-03-06). "10 fast growing UK startups to watch in 2024 and beyond!". EU-Startups. Retrieved 2024-05-17.
   probably not, but not assessed   No, again, this is not a NEWSORG, this is barely even WP:TRADES      
Maguire, Chris (2023-07-25). "Huckletree to open two new London hubs". BusinessCloud. Retrieved 2024-01-19. (Essentially the same announcement also at "London's first Web3 Hub opens its doors". Bdaily Business News. 2023-03-16. Retrieved 2024-05-19.)
     Dubious   ... Why is this even in here?    
Team, TechRound (2023-09-11). "SurrealDB: A Quantum Leap in Database Technology". TechRound. Retrieved 2024-05-17.
   This is a press release        
"Top 70+ startups in Database as a Service (DBaaS) - Tracxn". tracxn.com. 2024-04-05. Retrieved 2024-05-17.
     ...      
On to the BEFORE results not in the article! Starting with: "Cloud, privacy and AI: Trends defining the future of data and databases". Sifted. Retrieved 2024-05-19.
   Sponsored   Honestly I think we should take a closer look at most of our articles with Sifted as a source      
Emison, Joseph (2023). Serverless as a game changer: How to get the most out of the cloud (1 ed.). Hoboken: Pearson Education, Inc. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-13-739262-9.
     At least this one is an RS      
Lengweiler, David; Vogt, Marco; Schuldt, Heiko (June 2023). "MMSBench-Net: Scenario-Based Evaluation of Multi-Model Database Systems". Proceedings of the 34th GI-Workshop on Foundations of Databases (Grundlagen von Datenbanken).
 – Technically fails ORGIND but honestly I'd be willing to give a pass here   Not entirely convinced of GvDB but I'll give it a tick – Marginal, we'd mostly be looking at 3.2 here   3.2 is fine —
Jara Córcoles, Ángel Manuel (2024-01-08). "SurrealDB-La base de datos del futuro?".
     Honestly this would probably be a great source if we considered Bachelor's theses RS, but we don't      
Swami, Shubham; Aryal, Santosh; Bhowmick, Sourav S.; Dyreson, Curtis (2023). Almeida, João Paulo A.; Borbinha, José; Guizzardi, Giancarlo; Link, Sebastian; Zdravkovic, Jelena (eds.). "Using a Conceptual Model in Plug-and-Play SQL" (PDF). Conceptual Modeling. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland: 145–161. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47262-6_8. ISBN 978-3-031-47262-6.
       Passing mention    

If there are any sources not covered in the previous AfD (with its consensus to delete) let's discuss those. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

This table is out of date and does not include more up to-date recently included sources. Since the AfD, the company has railed $20m USD significantly affecting the company's notability, as well as additional sources I was able to find. Mr vili talk 18:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Which is why I said If there are any sources not covered in the previous AfD (with its consensus to delete) let's discuss those. Don't collapse this table (unless you collapse both) as your assessment directly contradicts this previous one on pretty much all the sources. But, where you have added new sources, we can now pick those out and discuss those. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
1: https://www.constellationr.com/blog-news/insights/surrealdb-raises-20-million-vc-funding
2: Serverless as a game changer book
3: https://gvdb23.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/GvDB2023_Lengweiler.pdf
4: https://techcrunch.com/2024/06/18/surrealdb-is-helping-developers-consolidate-their-databases/ written by senior editor at tech crunch
5: https://dbdb.io/db/surrealdb
6: https://www.eweekuk.com/applications/surrealdb-keeps-it-real-with-serverless-cloud-database-launch/
Imo, all of these certainly establish WP:SIGCOV Mr vili talk 19:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
'https://dbdb.io/db/surrealdb'? Is WP:ROFL a policy? It probably should be. An entry in a 'database of databases' isn't evidence of notability. Not in a million years... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is, when it's managed by the Database Group at Carnegie Mellon University. Mr vili talk 19:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
No it isn't. Not remotely. Not under any circumstances. Never. I'm not going to even bother trying to explain why, since you appear to lack the intellectual capacity to understand why you can ever be wrong about anything. IAndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
And on a more general point, I'd note that yet again, Mr Vili is trying to concoct notability by combining sources on two different subjects. A company is not software. Software is not a company. One cannot demonstrate notability for one by citing sources on the other. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
To anyone reading this, please go look at @AndyTheGrump's contribution history, he gets himself involved in practically every single vote and discussion opposing anything I do due to his personal vendetta against me - take his opinion with a grain of salt
However, I will happily address any actual comments from other editors, because I know their intent is to contribute and not be disruptive. Mr vili talk 19:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
1. Is a funding announcement. That's a clear CORPDEPTH fail.
2. Not a reference.
3. Is a benchmark of the software and has nothing on the company.
4. As for 3. But also not a WP:RS
5. Listing of the software. Nothing on the company.
6. See line 1 of the source evaluation table.
So all six of these apparently additional sources have no value towards ORGCRIT. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
1. It's an analysis by a research company
2. Huh?
3. Sure, but imo it is a reliable source for the database in the article
4. Tech Crunch is a WP:RS, just to be used with caution, there is no consensus.
5. Sure, but still a good source for the software
6. I disagree with line 1 in the AfD assessment, I think it's good WP:SIGCOV Mr vili talk 19:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Constellation Research's website seems to indicate they do paid articles. StereoFolic (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

'Syntax and features' section

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

In the unlikely event that this draft ever makes it to article status, I intend to remove this section, per WP:NOTGUIDE. There is absolutely no reason why such material needs to be included in an encyclopaedia. Nobody (at least, nobody with an atom of sense) is going to be looking it up here. 17:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC) AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:NOTGUIDE the section off the Rust page too then.
But doing so would be WP:Blanking vandalism. TagKnife (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC).Reply
I'd strongly advise you to read WP:VANDAL, before you dig yourself into a hole. And while you are at it, read WP:OTHERCONTENT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree that the syntax section should be condensed, with only a few examples of the syntax given as I believe they provide value to the reader, but an extensive list of examples is not necessary. It is true that developers will refer to the official SurrealDB docs rather than wikipedia.
I do think it should have some basic information though about the syntax, as any other page or section about a language typically would, eg: SQL, JavaScript Mr Vili talk 19:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The section has been cleaned up and focused to be more about the company and it's products, perhaps one day we can have a page dedicated to the database software itself, but for now it makes sense to include them within the same article Mr Vili talk 05:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:SurrealDB&oldid=1230517772"