Talk:Graph database

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Databases / Computer science  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of database related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Software / Computing  (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
 

Where did AragoDB go?!?[edit]

We seem to have lost ArangoDB

It had no WP:SECONDARY sources listed to support its notability and to prevent this article from becoming a WP:SPAMHOLE. Please provide creditable secondary sources (not press releases, not mere quotes from company representatives). Michaelmalak (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Network Databases and COBOL[edit]

Dont want to get into an edit war, but I think it is doing a disservice to the Wikipedia community to keep references to network model databases and COBOL out of this page. The whole reason for COBOL was the graph traversal aid it provided (in the sense of following typed links rather direct reference to graph concepts such as colored edges). I think a reference to COBOL is highly pertinent on this page, and will prevent a lot of reinventing the wheel if it is included. At least in the place where the lack of successful languages like SQL is decried, a mention of COBOL would be highly appropriate. NKP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.5.138 (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be very interesting if you could find a source that claims "the whole reason for COBOL was the graph traversal aid". Otherwise, just a mention of the early effort would be warranted (that is, without claiming it was as important as SQL). According to the CODASYL page, the "Network Database Language", if in fact that is what you are referring to, "never had any practical effect on implementations, [and] it was formally withdrawn in 1998." Michaelmalak (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I just now added a "History" section. From my research, COBOL predates network model databases by ten years, so I'm not seeing how "the whole reason for COBOL was the graph traversal aid" can be justified -- certainly not without a solid citation. Feel free to add to what I've started, assuming anything you add is verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmalak (talkcontribs) 17:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Related concepts[edit]

How are graph databases related to network databases and hierarchical databases as they were common in the 1960s and to triple stores?

Indeed -- this page should highlight the tradeoffs being made compared to the relational model (not just the positives), and also the relationship to pre-relational systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.64.200 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Also: it's not clear from the article that there is any difference at all between a graph database and an Object_database. Would be nice if this could be clarified. Mreftel (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Not correct IMHO[edit]

"A graph database is a kind of NoSQL database that uses..." NoSQL is just a buzz-word. Something like the "web 2.0" and "web 2.0"-Applications. What does it mean? I think this should be deleted but i guess there are other people which love to see this word in the beginning of the article. (No offense) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.66.80 (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"They can scale more naturally to large data sets as they do not typically require expensive join operations." It's not the database that doesn't need joins, it's the data model that you usually have when you use this type of database

"As they depend less on a rigid schema, they are more suitable to manage ad-hoc and changing data with evolving schemas." The database depends on a schema?? This sentence makes sense?

"Conversely, relational databases are typically faster at performing the same operation on large numbers of data elements." Needs a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.19.96 (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"they do not typically require expensive join operations" edges are implicit joins, and the execution times across various benchmarks (vs CTE aka recursive queries) seem to corroborate that89.158.120.107 (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Core Data[edit]

As far as I can see, Core Data is an object persistence framework, not a graph database. It doesn't even use or expose a graph data model AFAIK. Can someone please enlighten me on why Core Data should be part of this article? If there's no reference for it being a graph database, I suggest the link should be removed. --Nawroth (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No indexes?[edit]

The page says "By definition, a graph database is any storage system that provides index-free adjacency. This means that every element contains a direct pointer to its adjacent element and no index lookups are necessary." However, it then goes on to include triplestores (which DO use indexes) as examples. I think a distinction needs to be made between the logical structure of the database and the implementation details. RichMorin (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The article sounds bogus to me. What is the difference between an index and a pointer? Why make the distinction? Sounds like some marketing person wrote the intro. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion the definition of "graph database" is slightly biased. The line "A graph database is any storage system that provides index-free adjacency." is referenced from a marketing web-side. Most of the graph databases listed later do not fulfil this definition, i.e. Titan is undoubtedly a graph databases, but uses a different storage with indexes. I more fitting description can be found [1]. I think the term was coined in
Graph Databases; Adrian Silvescu, Doina Caragea, Anna Atramentov Artificial Intelligence Research Laboratory Department of Computer Science; Iowa State University; Ames, Iowa 50011
and they do not speak about index-free adjacency, but use the term "link".Fceller (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
sounds like pure marketing, the existing implementation all use indexes for persistent DBs. They use pointers for pure memory implementations, but those are just in-memory graphs and do not qualify as "databases", they are just object graphs that can be persisted. 89.158.120.107 (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the "not correct" comment - and tie it to this one... If the database provides index-free adjacency (or index-free links if you prefer), then it can't be based on a key-value store - which is an index. So, there is a contradiction in how the article is written. This incorrect assertion is made in the first sentence where it asserts that they must be built on top of a key-value store. The idea of an index-free adjacency is analogous to that of a pointer where the time to follow the relationship is O(1) with respect to the size of the graph. Most indexes are generally not O(1). It's this O(1) property which separates native graph databases from systems built on top of relational databases, or other indexing schemes. It's not marketing-speak - it reflects the inherent complexity limitations of the technology on which its based. Whether one accepts that its a _requirement_ for it to be a graph database (and I don't), there is a definite distinction in terms of limiting performance of graph traversals when one has index-free adjacency operations. So, I would take issue with "all implementations use indexes for persistent DBs". That's true that they _have_ indexes, but they aren't used for adjacency or link purposes - which is a big difference. Neo4j, for example uses this method. With Neo4j, typically a query will find the node to start from with an index, and then the rest of the query simply follows links (relationships) to compute the answer. The time-complexity of the query depends largely on the size of the subgraph that has to be visited to satisfy the query - _not_ on the total size of the database.AlanR (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

needs a history[edit]

Some useful information but it would be more useful to me if it had a section on the history of graph databases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.26.236 (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Cayley Graph database[edit]

Cayley is another graph database released by few individuals from Google. It can found at https://github.com/google/cayley . Can someone add this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.210.212 (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Datomic[edit]

Datomic is an index-based graph database. It is based on an immutable list of tuples, handles transactions, etc. RichMorin (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Gremlin[edit]

Gremlin is an important family of graph storage access tools. So, it can be used as a generic graph database API.

RichMorin (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Too many lists[edit]

There are too many lists in this article. They dominate the content, to the point of 80% of the article length. Lists in articles should be used to aid understanding of a topic, rather than be a collection of catch-all companies. All of these lists would be better served by being split from the article into "List of" articles. Mamyles (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Changed opening paragraph[edit]

Removing the inane confusion that a graph database is only a graph database if it provides index-free adjacency. This conflates what a graph database is, and what features it provides, ie it's interface, with the details of a particular way to implement one. There are other equally valid ways to implement one. This is like defining what a List is by saying Lists are only lists if they're linked lists.

Additionally if the intent of a "direct pointer" is that they must be physically direct, that is co-located, no distributed graph database could actually be a graph database.

It's also wrong that triple stores are specialized. They're perfectly capable of storing any arbitrary graph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhgrove (talkcontribs) 17:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

MOS corrections[edit]

Help is needed to convert some inline links into references- at the moment this is just deletionista-bait. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, ClemRutter & Andy Dingley. Please stop adding spam links to Wikipedia. These are *not* references/citations, these are just promotional external links to products. If you are unsure of how External Links in the body of an article are handled, please visit WP:EL. If you feel you need an exemption from how external links are handled here, you can try the Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I strongly advise them to study WP:WTAF. Many of the concerned articles either deserve an article or could be deleted. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Gruss dich KG. From your edit history you seem to be in an excellent to create the necessary stubs, and help with the references. I find that obscure technological articles are a problem to edit- you need to be inclusive, as five years down the line when you need to access it again, the irrelevant has become vital. References to terminology can be of a lower standard than references to opinion of value judgements. Unfortunately, clean up projects seem to apply the rule book with out consideration of the individual exception.
You have suggest that we read a particular opinion piece WP:WTAF which clearly states that it is an essay not policy, and WP:REDLINK is the governing policy- I can see no reference in there to mandatory external link in the external links section. No matter: It is a rule I adopt when training new editors- but in this case it can be considered just as good practice. information is better than no information, and the references can be changed when they come available.
I also explain that reverting a multiline edit (other than vandalism) is not good practice. Each link/ reference needs to checked individually- in this reversion- C++ has been delinked! @Stesmo: is doing a great job in SPAM policing- but now we have a discussion going, we need to understand which reference he finds offensive, and I invite him to leave an inline comment around the term and restore the innocent wikilinks he has zapped.
@Kgfleischmann:, we know that de:wikipedia has different editing practices to en:W- I am interested in your opinion as to differences in referencing standards- and how flagged edits has helped. Also any other frustrations you have with de: or en:. Take the discussion to my en: talk page as it will be off topic here Clem Rutter (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
ClemRutter, you mention that I removed the C++ wikilink, yet fail to mention that it was the 13th and 14th wikilink to C++ in this article. That would be covered at WP:DUPLINK. Additionally, See Also should not contain wikilinks already used in the article WP:NOTSEEALSO.
Now on to External Links: External links do not belong inside the body of the article. About ~20% of the time when I see external links in the body of an article, it's a link in support of claims made in the article, accidentally placed there by a new editor. These are absolutely something that should be converted to a cite (example). Citations should not be bare www.productname.com, as they are not references and are definitely not WP:RELIABLESOURCES, such as the case in this article.
The only good way to get a link to www.productname.com on Wikipedia is the Official Website link at the bottom of an article *about ProductName*. Which ties into WP:WTAF. These non-Wikipedia-notable graph dbs (those without articles and wikilinks) arguably shouldn't even be in this list until they have an article about them and a wikilink to them. Thanks for continuing the discussion, ClemRutter. Stesmo (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Overhaul[edit]

It has been noted previously that this article has too many lists. Items in the list should only be in this list if it is independently verifyable (per WP:V/WP:RS that they are Graph databases. Otherwise, this is just a WP:SPAMHOLE. In WP:LSC it states that Selection criteria for inclusion in lists should be ... supported by reliable sources. WP:CSC states that Lists are commonly written to satisfy either the criteria that Every entry meets the notability criteria. The lists such as "Features", "Distributed processing", "Shared-memory graph processing", etc, are also entirely unreferenced. I will start to prune these lists over the next couple of days/week. Please do not re-add items to these lists without first reading the policies and guidelines. -- HighKing++ 15:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Disputed SAP HANA[edit]

Is SAP HANA a graph database indeed? IMHO it is a column oriented database, not even NoSQL. AlainD (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It is as much a graph database as Oracle Spatial & Graph and Oracle Big Data Spatial & Graph are. Just because they're all built on top of RDBMS technology doesn't mean they should be excluded. See [2]. Disclosure: I am an employee of Oracle. Michaelmalak (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Sort of. It provides graph capabilities but isn't a specialized engine.[3] --Mark viking (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
So does a graph database having evolved from non-graph origins disqualify it from being listed here? In my opinion, no, as the article is about graph databases, not graph database engines. Michaelmalak (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I think that is a reasonable position. My own POV is that if reliable sources say HANA is a graph database, that is good enough for inclusion into this article. That seems to be the case, hence I am happy with keeping it in. --Mark viking (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Disputed Gun graph database entry[edit]

03/01/2017

I think it's a laughable conflict of interest that the maintainer of this page is an Oracle employee and clearly favors Oracle databases and Java databases. Almost every single database is one of the two. And he is clearly pushing his own interest by not allowing a legitimate popular database on the page. It's an abuse of power and very petty. He should be ashamed of himself.

-Zane Hitchcox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwhitchcox (talkcontribs) 00:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

10/14/2016 attempt to undo edits from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graph_database&diff=prev&oldid=725428050

to re add - and added information based on original pull request to add a secondary source. I found it very easy to find sources for gun. It's a terrible name, yes, because first gun registration database showed up for 'gun database' but rather 'javascript graph database' does show neo4j and gundb. several independant articles some better than others I could use as references.... or 'gundb' which has lists on stack overflow; it's certainly a thing that exists.


|- |Gun || 0.3.994 (Oct, 2016)
0.5 (TBD) ||Zlib,Apache2,MIT ||Javascript ||A realtime, decentralized, offline-first, graph database engine. Offline First! It doesn't differentiate between nodes and edges; edge is just a subclass of node; in code it would be 'class edge: node' So the intro to the article also still needs work; definatly seems like an arbitrary line to enforce. A relation could be like between two neurons with a synapse (vertices, edges) or two mating walls that just reference each other; or spouses that while their relation can be represented with a class 'relationship' could simple reference 'spouse' with no need for additional information on the relation. |-

− (Originally omitted because 'not graph database' would request more clarity on what that means... that you have to use the native language to build filters? [1])

from mark Nadal

https://gitter.im/amark/gun?at=5801c54278bd0d0363c54ade

I understand the need to be objective, and we should all promote that. However given that Michaelmalak is employed by Oracle, it makes him moderating this page on graph databases a conflict of interest (Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia). If we follow the very standard that you propose, we need to remove the following listed databases that have no citations on them: AllegroGraph, DEX, InfiniteGraph, MarkLogic, OpenCog, OntoText, Oracle Spatial, Oracle Big Spatial (why are there 2 Oracle products listed?), OrientDB, Profium, SAP, and Stardog, leaving us with only the following items remaining: BlazeGraph, Datastax, Neo4j, Sqrrl, and Teradata. That would be removing the majority of the list, which is ridiculous in the same way that removing GUN (or Arango, or Cayley, or others) does not make sense. It is a graph database (the G in GUN) and has enough stars on GitHub (https://github.com/amark/gun) to vet for its credibility/reputation. With this said, I am adding it back in so please do not undo.

Also Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia I'm kinda tired of fighting this battle; it's not my job. How do I Undid "revision 744278556 by D3x0r (talk) GUN was removed in August 2016 (see "Overhaul" in talk page). Before re-adding, provide a WP:SECONDARY source not a WP:PRIMARY one.) (undo | thank)"

I don't see how it was removed then, when it was removed earlier, when was it re-added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D3x0r (talkcontribs) 06:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

(I don't know how to 'talk' on 'talk') — Preceding unsigned comment added by D3x0r (talkcontribs) 06:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Thanks for bringing the disputed entry to the talk page for discussion. Regarding the entries in the list of graph databases, I agree with folks above that we should restrict to notable entries. Generally entries can be shown notable in one of two ways. One, an entry may have its own article and we can go to that article to verify that there are reliable sources WP:RS for the entry. Or two, an entry may have citations to reliable sources. Looking over the list at present, all the entries except Blazegraph, Gun, and Oracle Big Data Spatial and Graph have articles, and Sqrrl Enterprise has an article , but it is about the company, not the database. Blazegraph and Sqrrl Enterprise do have citations to reliable sources, however. That leaves Gun and Oracle Big Data Spatial and Graph as candidates for deletion from this list. I did a quick search for RS for both entries and came up empty. Stars on github don't qualify as a secondary reliable source of any depth for Gun and I was only able to find regurgitated press releases for the announcement of Oracle Big Data Spatial and Graph. Hence unless we can find RS for these, I would be inclined to delete both of them. --Mark viking (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Oracle Big Data Spatial & Graph, despite having a name lexically similar to Oracle Spatial & Graph, is a completely separate technology based on NoSQL, distributed processing, and property graphs (as opposed to storing RDF triples in an RDBMS). It's new, with GA in May, 2016, and there are no secondary sources that interview users of the product. The best secondary source I've found is one that has a specified author, but which does rely mostly on press releases. https://adtmag.com/articles/2015/05/15/oracle-spatial-graph.aspx I am still an employee of Oracle, so I will leave the editing or deletion of the entry to others. As for Sqrrl Enterprise, the cited article spends 50% of the time talking about the graph capabilities -- for a product that supports both RDBMS and graph uses cases, that's probably the best that can be hoped for. Michaelmalak (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

(d3x0r) : work in progress... give us a little time — Preceding unsigned comment added by D3x0r (talkcontribs) 22:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Whether github is a reliable source[edit]

It has been suggested that the number of github stars constitutes a reliable source. I contend that it does not as it falls under WP:UGC which precludes even IMDB as a reliable source! Also, now that the issue has been opened up on the talk page, it goes against WP:DR to revert an edit as was just done. Michaelmalak (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


IMDB is user generated like Wikipedia is user generated, GitHub is user generated but also user vetted, a feature which neither Wikipedia or IMDB. It is extraordinarily biased of Michaelmalak, an employee of Oracle (Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia) to be moderating this page. Gun has more stars than OrientDB and nearly as many stars as Neo4j , both products that are Open Source and can be vetted by the community (unlike Oracle, which is proprietary). Additionally, according to a source that Michaelmalak will also claim is "invalid", the team behind gundb raised from Tim Draper and Marc Benioff of salesforce (https://angel.co/gun) who are credible third parties. Also, Michaelmalak has reverted many edits as was just done - there is a clear double standard here, which does not speak well for an employee of Oracle. Finally, nearly all of the listed databases do not have impartial third party citations, so moderators should either clean up the entire list or add other databases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.250.202.176 (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The angel.co cite convinces me. I don't know if it would convince User:HighKing, who did the initial purge. No one "moderates" this article. All Wikipedia users are equal editors.
I concur with Michaelmalak that stars on Github is not a reliable source, as it is user generated with no editorial oversight. The angel.co source is a PR blurb about the company, not the database, so isn't a reliable source for the database. I shall remove this and the Oracle Big Data Spatial and Graph entries as mentioned above. No prejudice to adding either one back in when independent reliable sources become available-reviews in the trade journals or respected new sites, books, etc. It seems WP:TOOSOON for both products to have generated independent reviews. --Mark viking (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the impartiality in the latest edits, this shows good and fair intent by Mark viking and looking at Mark viking 's contribution history it looks like he is a significant member of the community. Is there any other conflict of interest that should be disclosed (the contributions to the Datastax wikipedia article seemed influential, but did not seem tied to any professional work)? With that said, here are reasoned arguments, any individual one justifying why the revert ought not be accepted:

(1) Moving target. First the problem cited was "no notability", then GitHub peer vetting was proposed (see below for why some aspects of GitHub ought be accepted as legitimate). Then others claimed "no secondary sources" of independent users reviewing the system, to which two sources were provided (see the citations in the edit). Now, in a form of special pleading ( https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading ), the goalpost has been moved to trade journals (see section below for its problems) and news sites (see below).

(2) Peer Review. The argument, which was ignored and not addressed, is that GitHub provides peer review. The claim that GitHub stars have "no editorial oversight" would be true if star count was self-reported, but this is not the case. The project has over 2,700 stars which is quite notable (compare to Orient which is included in the list, at 2,600 and Neo4j at 3,100). It is significantly more notable to have 2,700 independent affirmations than it is to have "editorial oversight" by an editor or editor(s). We do not throw out academic papers just because they are "user generated".

(3) Venture Capital. Again, the citation of https://angel.co/gun was not to provide a secondary source (which would justify ignoring it as a PR source), but to establish credibility and notability such that it is NOT wp:toosoon . Even another wikipedian found this as being a useful and convincing source. There are only 1,810 billionaires in the world (www.forbes.com/billionaires/) and two well known billionaires, Tim Draper and Marc Benioff of Salesforce, have invested in this company. It seems unfair to cite wp:toosoon in this case without addressing the actual argument brought up.

(4) News sites. Hacker News is a news website (Hacker_News), however it will probably written off as "not a correct type of news site" (see Trade Journal point A below). The project in question has made several notable top of the news homepage appearances (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9076558, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7587814) and even on reddit (another probably "not the correct type of" news site, https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/57psx6/gun_a_realtime_decentralized_offlinefirst_graph/).

(5) Trade Journals. (A) What is a qualified Trade Journal? In order to prevent any further changing goalposts, here is a challenge. Have wikipedian editors make a list (without first looking at what trade journals the current DB's cite, to eliminate conflict of interest) of "qualified" trade journals that they can cite without having to look them up or research. If this proposal is accepted, then any DB products that are not vetted by those top tiered journals ought get removed. If this proposal seems ridiculous, then it goes to show that arbitrarily changing the goalposts to quote "trade journals" endquote is a reductio ad absurdum argument (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/151/Reductio-ad-Absurdum) without first clearly defining what qualifies a trade journal in the first place. (B) Other than the moving target (see above), suggesting that trade journals are not influenced by monetary or industry political incentive is a bit naive. This requirement favors proprietary solutions, since proprietary vendors have the monetary and industry political networks to get PR in these trade journals. That is exactly what a PR firm does, it tries to get product placement in trade journals without it looking like it originated from the vendors. To point out a fallacy of my own, of course peer reviewed communities like GitHub and others favor Open Source vendors, which is why the argument of "trashing GitHub stars" while "promoting trade journals" ought be viewed unfair. They both have qualifying merits of their own.

(6) Equal Assessment. Treating Oracle Big Data and Spatial with the same requirements is a step in the right and fair direction, as Mark viking proposed. As mentioned by someone else in this page, every database on the list does not have independent citations other than their own wikipedia page except for BlazeGraph, Datastax, Neo4j, Sqrrl, and Teradata - and even Datastax's wikipedia page is flagged for deletion (DataStax). Therefore, according to the merits proposed by other editors, the list should be cleaned up for all except those 5 products. If not (see a similar reductio ad absurdum argument above), then not only should the contested database be included but many others that Michaelmalak has been trying to delete (like Cayley, and I think Arango and others).

There has been thorough reasoning provided here, so unless each point can be refuted, gundb has notability enough, by several other people's standards, that it will respectfully be added back to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.250.202.176 (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

A couple of points. Your arguments above are not really going to lend any weight to whether or not Gun DB is notably. We aggressively weed out lists because in the past they turned into a huge pile of spam and nobody wants that. It detracts from the article and becomes disruptive as every company argues incessently over why their product is notable. We have policies and guidelines that are independent of any particular editor or article and you should always attempt to base any arguments on policies and not on a tactic of pointing out that because X is included the Y should be included too.
As per WP:NNC, it states The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people).. Unless the community wishes to apply different criteria to this article and to allow the inclusion of every graph database product under the sun, then for now this list is only for notable products. The basic test for notability is significant coverage in a secondary source independent of the subject.
So, onto the sources you have provided. Blogs and Wikis are not regarded as good sources because *anybody* can write a blog (there can be exceptions if the blog or Wiki is authored by a recognised expert, etc, but this doesn't happen very often). On that basis, you have not provided any sources that pass this basic test.
My advice is to read the policies and wait until your product meets the criteria for notability *OR* you can convince the community to relax the criteria for the list in this article. -- HighKing++ 19:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
HighKing your comments do not address and ignored every single argument laid out, please try again - and don't suggest that well reputed peer reviewed Open Source libraries are spam, that is insulting to the community especially when you compare them against proprietary closed source items listed (if you have any conflict of interests it would be good for you to disclose them now). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.6.25 (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Since you are hopping around from IP address to IP address, I'm posting this message here so that you will see it for sure. There is a three revert policy that can lead to a block if you continue to edit war on the article. Let's try to address the concerns here first. -- HighKing++ 12:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
My comments do address every point you make. I stated this list is only for *notable* products. The basic test for notability is significant coverage in a secondary source independent of the subject. If you can provide references that meet this criteria, you're in! I'll try to make it clearer though because I remember well when I started editing how confusing this process can be and how sometimes the policies don't seem to cover the particular argument I had in mind.
1. Moving Target. You're wrong. There are no moving goalposts. The criteria is notability, full stop. The definition of notability involves independent coverage in secondary sources. Read the policy. The definition of Secondary sources would (IMHO) exclude Github since the reference you provided was written by Mark Nadal who (as you probably know) is not independent.
Michaelmalak previous required interviews with independent users of the database, which were provided and then rejected by you. So yes, there are independent reviews. says: 5.150.130.141
2. Peer Review. Since the reference to Github you provided was writtern by Mark Nadal, it is not considered independent coverage and fails notability.
Maybe there is confusion here. In the open source community, people vet projects. These are not self-report. If the number of GitHub stars were reported by Mark Nadal then you would be correct. But they are not, and thus warrant notability. On this point alone reverting the removal of gun is justified. says: 5.150.130.141
3. You state the citation of https://angel.co/gun was not to provide a secondary source .... but to establish credibility and notability. If it is credible and notable, then you should have no problems finding something that hasn't been written (directly or indirectly) by Mark Nadal. That is a fantastic list of investors, good team, credible technology. If I was looking to use a graph database, this is probably one I'd consider. But until an independent story in a seconday source exists, this doesn't meet the criteria.
Same thing as GitHub here. A wikipedia article, for instance, might self report investors. But angel.co is not a self-report, the investors listed have to accept their names being used. Why do you reject peer review? They are independent. says: 5.150.130.141
4. News sites. Yup, you've answered your own question. Not the right type of news sites....not really "news sites" at all. More like chat rooms and blogs with comments. Oh .. and the fact that Mark Nadal can't be considered as independent. But mainly because these sites cannot be considered secondary since anybody can post anything they like and there's no editorial oversight.
Again, you fail to address the important issue that these news reports are community vetted. Several communities (Venture Capitalists, GitHub, hackernews, reddit) have found this project to be notable. You are going to have a hard time claiming "those were all Mark Nadal". says: 5.150.130.141
5. Trade Journals. In general, Trade Journals make for very poor references. They are rarely "independent" because they rely on advertising from the companies/products that they talk about. I don't understand the point you're making in the rest of (A) and it is not related to any policy or guideline I'm familiar with. I understand (B) and the point is well made. It really is a judgement call on whether an article in a trade journal can be regarded as independent. In general (but not always), if the article has been provided with "quotes" from someone at the company, then I'd say no, it cannot be considered independent. If you've any issues with a reference that is in use, let me know and I'll look at it for you.
Acceptable. says: 5.150.130.141
6. Equal Assessment. Personally, I'd be quite happy to delete every product that doesn't have its own Wikipedia page. But ... the criteria is slightly easier for inclusion in a list that for getting an article page. I covered this in my previous comment.
Having ones own wikipedia article is significantly easier than getting VC funding and recognized on some of the top tech forums in the world. But if that is a personal criteria you hold, that is fine. says: 5.150.130.141
In summary - GUN fails notability. -- HighKing++ 12:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
To set out my position on these matters, I agree with every one of HighKing's points here. To expand on point 6, the IP is correct that DataStax should be deleted from the list if it is deleted at AfD due to lack of notability. It has just been declared a "keep", however, so can stay on the list for now. The other entries IP mentioned that don't have independent citations in this article, but do have their own WP articles, are assumed to have those citations to RS in their respective articles. That may not be true, as with DataStax recently, and so those articles may need to be re-examined. In terms of COI, I have an interest in graph theory and the Semantic Web, so am interested in this article. But as an academic in biophysics, I have no financial or personal stake in any of the databases or companies mentioned. --Mark viking (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
If you conveniently ignore the multi-community vetting, sure. But you only have one dangling justification of "trade journals" which on its own is not sufficient to delete gun. says: 5.150.130.141
OK, you asked for a point-by-point response, which I provide. You then fail to respond with any argument based on policy or address any points I've raised - and then revert the article anyway. That isn't how we do things here. I'm going to request that the article is protected from editing by IP addresses and revert the article once more. I predict that if you want to edit-war rather than discuss, this will not end well for you and you will probably end up with a block. Not a threat, just reciting what I've learned through experience. -- HighKing++ 14:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
"Not a threat" certainly looks like a threat - claiming there is no discussion after several well reasoned arguments (that you avoided the key issues on, as noted several times) and then threatening to ban me for not "discussing" is pretty abusive. I don't mind making an account, my IP change is because I travel a lot - which has no relevance to the discussion. Your reply again ignored the important points brought up and does not show good faith when you revert changes without justifying them, so I will create an account and attempt to undo your unwarranted edits. Please justify why peer review (as well every other point other than 6 which was acceptable) is not legitimate (you've admitted yourself that your view is a personal one) to the community before reverting changes, and don't abuse your power by threatening people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.80.162 (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
You see, you say that I haven't addressed your points. But I have. Each and every one of them (maybe except for 5(A) which I don't understand). You say you've raised "important points" but what you haven't done - and this is how we operate here - is address your points with reference to policies and guidelines. If you don't do that, then your points just look like you don't like what's being said or you chose to not listen. I addressed the point about peer review above if you'd care to look. And Mark viking agrees (below). The consensus is that the product you represent does not meet the criteria for notability for this list. So until either you find some other reference or until consensus changes, it is improbable that the article will include your product. -- HighKing++ 17:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect assertions do not qualify as addressing points (2-4):
2) HighKing claimed GitHub stars are self report, this is false. Compare stars of listed notable open source databases: Blazegraph 124 stars, Neo4j 3124, OpenCog 1070, Openlink Virtuoso 359, OrientDB 2656, gun 2790.
3) Then claimed https://angel.co/gun is self report, which is false. Both billionaires (Tim Draper, Marc Benioff) approved their listing.
4) Then claimed Mark Nadal was the source of the homepage of Reddit and HackerNews, which is false.
That means points (2-4) have not been addressed.
A) Then rather than discussing HighKing simply threatened to ban.
B) Then when when HighKing realized he wasn't powerful enough to ban, he requested this Wiki article to be locked but when CambridgeBayWeather (admin) locked the article it included cayley and gun, so HighKing had to grovel for extra permission (User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Fully_Protected_Graph_database) so he could get his way to exclude cayley and gun.
C) HighKing admits that the reason to reject Peer Review sources (GitHub, AngelList, etc.) is "(IMHO)" which means it is his opinion, not policy.
D) HighKing claims consensus despite the fact that 4 other editors (d3x0r, myself, an unsigned user, and the user who added cayley) disagree, and only 3 (HighKing, michaelmalak [employee of Oracle], Mark viking) agree.
E) HighKing admits that "trade journal" requirement is a poor reference and demands the power of "let me look at it" to decide. Thus proving (1) moving goal posts and special pleading fallacy.
Given the fact that nearly all of HighKing's statements are either false or have special power abuses, HighKing has no right to use offensively exclusive language like "this is how we operate" (we who?), nor is the deletionist attitude of several vetted and notable databases justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmobii (talkcontribs) 01:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Tmobii, please have a look at WP:THREAD for how to format your responses on Talk pages. Also, please sign your responses by using 4 tildes like this ~~~~.
Most of your responses are incorrect or a deliberate misrepresentation on what was said. Also, please comment on the content and not on individual editors.
2) Incorrect. I did not. Also and this has been said to you many times before, read the policies and guidelines. It was stated by someone else that the star rating system is user generated content. See here. I said that the reference that *you* provided on github here was written by Mark Nadal.
3) Again, Incorrect. I did not say is was a self report. And (thankfully) a billionaire's "approval" has zero weight here on whether something is notable or not. What I said was that *you* stated you provided the angel.io source "to establish credibility and notability". I responded that it is not an independent source (because it has a big promotional video right at the top and some PR stuff underneath) and that it doesn't meet the criteria for secondary sources.
4) And again, Incorrect, I did not say that. I said these are *not* news sites, but chat rooms and blogs with comments. Please take care to attribute who said what to the correct parties.
A), B), C), D), E) Now you've decided to twist words and events. Doesn't deserve a response. Despite what you think, I've spent considerable time responding to your queries, pointing you to policies and my intention is to assist and help you. If you're just going to abuse the offer then its a reflection on you, not me.
I believe that the best way forward is for me to disengage from responding to you and for *you* to request a third opinion. You can request one here. -- HighKing++ 12:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
2) The link HighKing provide states what was originally claimed "Showing appreciation to the repository maintainer for their work", every time HighKing edit wars to delete these Open Source projects they are discrediting over 2800+ independent programmers who have starred and vetted these projects. That is notability and reputability that cannot be denied. Those stars are community vetted and not self-report.
3) Multiple billionaires independently approving of the project certainly has more weight than any random edit war by us, which leaves HighKing with the grounds of disproving the project before deleting it - this is not favorable for the recent deletionist trend by HighKing, but remember that this page had GunDB project listed and approved long before HighKing and others showed up with their agendas. Claiming that peer review and reputation management sites (like github, angel list, etc.) is PR has no justification to it and fails any recognition or research. HighKing would need to defend this claim with credible third party sources that match the same requirements HighKing requests of others.
A) ~ E) Can be verified here: User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Fully_Protected_Graph_database.
The point of the talk page is to talk and openly debate these matters, if HighKing does not think that public discourse is an appropriate place for the merits of databases then I respect that opinion but that does not change the fact that this is the talk page and the discussion ought continue and be encouraged by all. (Edit: formatting.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmobii (talkcontribs) 21:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The GUN entry still has no article (see WP:WTAF. The given "proofs" of notability do not convince. Neither github stars nor the personal opinion of "billionaires" are acceptable proofs of notability. Btw. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be remote controlled by external communities. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Open question: Can anyone defend why peer review references that are not self report, like GitHub and others, are not legitimate? These databases have significant notability (compare neo4j at 3100 and gundb at 2800) there and other places. So far the only reasons against have been "IMHO" and "aren't acceptable" which are opinions not arguments. These opinions need to be backed by arguments, or else the talk page is useless for debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmobii (talkcontribs) 05:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Open Answer. We're getting tired of your antics. I strongly suggest you back away from this article, especially when multiple editors are patiently trying to help you understand the various policies that are applicable. You appear to believe (incorrecly I might add) that you can ignore policies and guidelines and edit-war your way to including *your* product into the article. That will not work. If you do not like what you've heard here, by all means go and get others to back up your position. If you manage to achieve a consensus, then the article will change. Until then, the *consensus* here is that your product fails the minimum bar for notability. You have been warned previously so I am now left with no choice but to report your conduct and an administrator will make a decision on the next course of action. -- HighKing++ 15:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Reported - Link here -- HighKing++ 15:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The answer to the question on peer review is that you are tired and that I should just leave? Could somebody please explain to me why this is not a non-sequitur? (Edit: comment was in wrong place)

Github is user-generated content and not reliable for notability or statements of fact. Notability has to be addressed by reliable independant third party sources. See WP:RS Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI: Tmobii started an article about GunDB. Hope there will be many reviewers.--Kgfleischmann (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Kgfleischmann. I've nominated it for deletion at AfD here. None of the references meet WP:GNG and he's repeating the same ones he submitted at this article but obviously has not taken on board the reasons for rejection. -- HighKing++ 16:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
HighKing, that is factually false and I already pointed that out to you. The citations that were included in the gun listing were "actual user experiences" that EdJohnston and somebody else (I think Michaelmalak) said was a valid source, one was Distributed Machine Learning with GunDB and the other was "A Weekend with GunDB" by independent sources, and I believe there was one other citation that was to the tradeoffs of where GunDB is a bad solution in order to stay fair and balanced. Nearly all of the citations on the GunDB wikipedia page, except for maybe HackerNews/Reddit/Angel.co (?), are new sources including: UCLA, WSJ, Forbes, AllThingsD (to which you even tried to reply to!) which covered the history and development of gunDB and soon I'll be adding the HighScalability citation. Please put yourself in my shoes to understand how the misinformation you are spreading only damages my reputation unfairly. I am glad to have everybody back chatting again, so thank you, that is a huge improvement from the previous situation. Thanks. Tmobii (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Why can't I add an entry for a new Graph Database into the list?[edit]

Every time I enter a new Graph Database that our company has released, it seems that it keeps on getting deleted? May I know why? Are there guidelines that I'm missing? How can we find out who deleted it?

Thank you! Haikalpribadi (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

See the discussion for #Disputed Gun graph database entry. To re-add, establish notability by either linking to a dedicated Wikipedia article about the database or providing a citation to a WP:SECONDARY source that is not merely a press release -- preferably an article that either interviews actual users of the database, compares to other databases, or discusses pros/cons in a balanced manner (that a press release would not). Michaelmalak (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Michaelmalak, I have finally complied with this requirement. Before I get to it, please try to understand my honest attempts to comply (because they seem to be being written off as me being some sort of spammer or troll):

1) First a reference to the project that "discusses pros/cons in a balanced manner" was required before inclusion. Complied: Added https://github.com/amark/gun/wiki/CAP-Theorem (although it looks like they moved "considerations" section to a different page, see here: https://github.com/amark/gun/wiki/Conflict-Resolution-with-Guns#considerations ). Inclusion was rejected and goal post was moved.

2) Then the requirement became (1) and (not or, as it had been explained before) a "preferably an article that either interviews actual users of the database" which EdJohnston also confirmed with "If GUN has actual users, has anyone published their experience, or" at User_talk:EdJohnston#Graph_Database. Notice the or usage (not and, which things got switched to). Complied: 2 independent user reviews: http://myrighttocode.org/blog/artificial%20intelligence/particle%20swarm/genetic%20algorithm/collective%20knowledge/machine%20learning/gun-db-artificial-knowledge-sharing , and https://medium.com/a-weekend-with/a-weekend-with-gun-a61fdcb8cc5d . Inclusion was rejected and goal post was moved.

3) Then the requirement became (2) and (not or) "notability and significance" which still remains fuzzy and opinion based. Complied: VC funding by billionaires Tim Draper and Marc Benioff of Salesforce (http://angel.co/gun) and peer review by programmers on GitHub (https://github.com/amark/gun/stargazers) at 2900+ stars compared to Neo4j at 3100+ stars (https://github.com/neo4j/neo4j/stargazers). Inclusion was accepted by one editor stating they were convinced (finally!) by the funding, but was rejected by others and goal post was moved.

4) Then the requirement was (2) and redefining "notability and significance" to "No prejudice to adding either one back in when independent reliable sources become available-reviews in the trade journals or respected new sites, books, etc." (note again the or in the statement, not an and). Complied: 2 links to separate popular programming news websites that had homepage landing community vetted upvotes,HackerNews https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9076558 and Reddit r/programming https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/57psx6/gun_a_realtime_decentralized_offlinefirst_graph/ . Inclusion was rejected and goal post was moved.

5) Then the requirement was (4) and trade journal sources by HighKing. Failed: I requested a precise definition of trade journal, to which the requirement was actually argued against "Trade Journals make for very poor references" yet simultaneously required with an arbitrary "If you've any issues with a reference that is in use, let me know and I'll look at it for you." I pointed out how logically this was an irrational standard not based on policy and things went downhill.

6) Finally I felt like EdJohnston helped restore order and discussion and clarified things. To which I have now reattempted to Comply to (5) with: 1 citation to the same source and author as accepted as a Neo4j source - GunDB was included in a curated list by http://highscalability.com/blog/2016/3/25/stuff-the-internet-says-on-scalability-for-march-25th-2016.html . No verdict yet. I hope no goal post is moved.

7) I noticed that there was still an outstanding or requirement of "establish notability by either linking to a dedicated Wikipedia article about the database" and have put good faith in to Comply: Added a GunDB page as requested where I found a ton of new qualified sources while researching the history and development of GunDB, including academic connections that EdJohnston had as a "or" requirement - GunDB which was approved by an independent reviewer, No1lakersfan, with UCLA, WSJ, AllThingsD, and the Kauffman Foundation as some of the new citations. No verdict yet, however HighKing immediately accosted me of "Creating this article is a sign of disruptive editing and not getting it." (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GunDB#GunDB) with an attempt to delete - I really hope this doesn't cause another disruption as I feel like things were finally getting settled down again.

To conclude, I hope this presented a reasonable explanation of why inclusion is now over qualified compared to other Open Source databases currently listed. Or at least that you and others could recognize my honest efforts in trying to comply. Thank you. Tmobii (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

What you are consistently failing to get/accept is that there is *every* source you use *must* be a reliable source and therefore must meet the criteria. Please stop continually complaining that goal posts are being moved or have been moved - the reality is that you have not read the policies and guidelines and you're relying on a tactic of insisting to us what must be accepted. If you would just take a breath and read what we've been telling you and the accompanying policies and guidelines, we wouldn't have to keep repeating ourselves. I've already posted an explanation why each and every one of your sources fails WP:RS at the GunGB AfD page so I really don't understand why you are ignoring everything said there and posting all of this here again. -- HighKing++ 19:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
There has been a reply since yesterday, so no worries, I'm not ignoring you. Thanks for taking the time to reply and adding your input to this! I would also love to hear feedback from User:Michaelmalak and User:Kgfleischmann. Particularly Michaelmalak, as he recommended a dedicated Wikipedia page would be good enough for list inclusion - hoping to hear his feedback. Trying to comply! Tmobii (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Now that GunDB has its own Wikipedia article, it meets the criteria for inclusion in this article, in my opinion. Michaelmalak (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Michaelmalak, thank you for all the time you have spent going back and forth with me. I will wait and hear back from the remaining others as well, but if there are no further major reasons for oppositions in the next day or two, I'll attempt to re-add GunDB back into the list with this as the permission to do so (if you think I shouldn't, just let me know). Thank you for hearing this through and helping me improve my sources/edits. Tmobii (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Michaelmalak is correct in pointing out that GunDB has its own article and that we normally use this as a measure of whether a product/company passes the notability criteria. But please note that there is no *rule* that states that products with articles are *automatically* notable. Tmobii, you especially are aware that the GunDB article has been nominated for deletion and that it has been pointed out to you that the references you provided in the article fail to denote notabaility. For that reason, do not add GunDB back into the article here unless there is a clear consensus to do so and pending the result of the AfD. -- HighKing++ 20:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Could you point me towards any policy that requires that? I definitely respect the view, but it would be nice to hear another editor's thoughts instead since you started the AfD. Could User:Kgfleischmann weigh in, I believe his guidance would be beneficial, now that we have already heard from Michaelmalak? Tmobii (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
You appear to be confused. The only policy we're discussing is WP:N. And I know you're aware of WP:RS guidelines also. There is nothing in policy that states "if an article exists on a topic, that topic is automatically notable". And since your GunDB article has been nominated for deletion based on lack of notability and sources that do not meet the criteria in the WP:RS guideline, I (and several others involved in this discussion) believe your product fails notability. Nothing has changed since we explicitly discussed your product previously. You opened an RfC on whether GitHub stars could be considered towards denoting notability but this does not look like it will be accepted. I would also add that even if it was, the number of GitHub stars we might use as a baseline for consideration would more than likely be thousands and would therefore also exclude your product. Even though we had examined the sources you put forward here and explained how those sources fail WP:RS for one reason or another, you then created a GunDB article using sources with the exact same problems. The entire AfD page is then filled with your arguments where you either don't bother to read the policy or guidelines, or you try to argue your way around it, or you argue why a source meets some other criteria and ignore the reasons it fails others. Given that background, it is very underhanded to come back to this article with an argument based on the existence of an article on GunDB as a measure of notability.
You appear unflaggingly reluctant to accept the consensus and their shared point of view. You've argued the same points repeatedly and you are clearly unwilling to accept what is contained in the policies and guidelines. You have adopted an approach that the opinion of anyone who has taken the time to help you (yes ... *help* you) is unwelcome. But at some point (really soon) you need to change your approach as it is disruptive. -- HighKing++ 16:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Nomination was done by you, for deletion, and you have done that with other pages and gotten overruled (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ArangoDB&diff=737874348&oldid=737850961), please remember Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers in your interactions with me.
Notability (Wikipedia:GNG) has been addressed with new sources (that I found after the sources I listed here for list inclusion) with multiple independent verifiable and reliable sources that had significant and presumed coverage from UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/AllThingsD, please see the AfD where I take time to explain the notability.
Neo4j, GunDB (proof: https://github.com/amark/gun), ArangoDB, OrientDB all have thousands of stars - what is your point?
Per policy, Wikipedia:AFDEQ, is about discussion and argumentation. Tmobii (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
It is a good policy to wait for the result of the AfD ... . --Kgfleischmann (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Kgfleischmann, I trust your input on this and will wait. Tmobii (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Kgfleischmann, what further requirements need to be complied with? (1,2,3,4,6) Have been covered. The databases that don't have their own pages (Blazegraph, Cayley) cite TechTarget, InfoWorld, and Eweeks (publications that I personally haven't heard of), do any publications like those or "more notable" count? Tmobii (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
You have already been told 5 or 6 times that the sources have to meet the requirements in WP:RS. Seeing as you know this, can you explain why you think 1. "has been covered" given the result of your RfC below? And why 2. is covered given that they are blogs (and fail WP:RS? Or that you still consider 3. is covered given that it has been explained to you multiple times that the viewpoints of investors are not regarded as "independent" (as per WP:RS)? Or that 4. has been covered given that both your YCombinator and reddit links are the very definition of "user contributions" and therefore fail WP:RS. Or that 6. is a blog and fails WP:RS. The goalposts have never moved. -- HighKing++ 17:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
A question was asked, you did not answer it (nor was the question for you). So Eweeks, InfoWorld, TechTarget are good examples for WP:RS then? Sweet, I'll look for sources like that (UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/Kauffman Foundation/AllThingsD seemed more WP:RS, but I guess I'll lower my standards to match your requirements). Tmobii (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Article Talk pages are public and not the place to have private discussions. You can post a question on Kgfleischmann's Talk page if you wish to ask for only that editor's opinion. Nevertheless, your post suggests that you now accept that none of the references you posted meet the criteria in WP:RS. But it is worrying to see you continue to assert/insist that *any* reference from the list ((UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/Kauffman Foundation/AllThingsD) are automatically good references. That may not be the case. The references still need to meet WP:RS. So, for example, if the WSJ contained an interview with someone connected with your company, that would still be considered a primary source for any of the facts in the article. Or, for example, if Forbes publishes a press release, even though the publication is viewed as a reliable source, that article would not meet the criteria in WP:RS. The WP:RS criteria exists whether you want to create a new standalone article or whether you want to include your article in a list within an article. The other products are in the list because there is *one* single reference that meets the criteria in WP:RS and acknowledges that the product is a graph database. If you can find one single source that meets the criteria in WP:RS for GunDB, the we can also add GunDB. Your tone in your response above suggests to me that you are frustrated but those are the same goalposts that have always been in place and they haven't moved. -- HighKing++ 17:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion history is right there, and (1-7) is a good summary with quotes. Reflecting on tone is dangerous online, you are free to do it but it will cause you to misread my statements - I encourage you, as you suggested, to discuss this with me on my Talk page. Of the 5 mentioned, only 1 was an interview with the founder, elsewise WP:RS is met yet I'm more than happy to also find you sources like Eweeks (something which I have never heard of compared to WSJ and institutions like UCLA). This is a good faith attempt on my behalf, but will also hold you accountable to what you have said. Cheers! Tmobii (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand why you can't grasp WP:RS. It has been patiently explained numerous times. Your continued repeating, over and over, of references for GunDB that have been shown to fail WP:RS is tendentious and disruptive to the project. It is not "good faith" to deliberately and repeatedly miss the point. If you continue with this style of editing or continue to assert points that are variations of previous points that have been asked and answered, I will ask an administrator to block you from this article. -- HighKing++ 19:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Threatening to block, again? This is Wikipedia, WP:ETIQ, respectfully dialoging with others is a must, it is not a platform to censors those who disagree with you. Tmobii (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC about Open Source software notability[edit]

This RfC was closed because a general consensus has been established to not use GitHub's ranking system (at-least) as a peer-review source. Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 15:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per admin EdJohnston's recommendation of a RfC here (User_talk:EdJohnston#Graph_Database), determining a policy for measuring Open Source software's notability would be useful. I propose: Is GitHub's ranking system a credible source of peer review? Tmobii (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

  • No GitHub is user-generated and cannot be considered "independent" by the standards set out for notability. Same for blogs. As EdJohnston said, "You are likely to be disappointed if you try to use Github as a basis for showing notability". This has been pointed out to you multiple times before. You're still not getting it. -- HighKing++ 12:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
HighKing, you and I are already one of the disputed editors, this is not the place for us to discuss (the other section is), please read my response to both of you below: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmobii (talkcontribs) 14:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Please read WP:RFC where it clearly states All editors (including IP users) are welcome to respond to any RfC. -- HighKing++ 14:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No That's what github itself writes about their stars:
About Stars
Starring a repository allows you to keep track of projects that you find interesting, even if you aren't associated with the project.
When you star a repository, you're actually performing two distinct actions:
Creating a bookmark for easier access
Showing appreciation to the repository maintainer for their work
Many of GitHub's repository rankings depend on the number of stars a repository has. For example, repositories can be sorted and searched based on their star count. In addition, the Explore page shows you popular repositories based on the number of stars they have.
This does hardly establish encyclopedic notability. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers, I am glad we are finally back to the talk page, I view that as good faith and intention by all. So cheers!
Let's distill this down to some simple yes/no questions then: "Does 2,800+ independent programmers expressing appreciation have significance?" or "Does 2,800+ independent programmers bookmarking a database indicate significance?"
1. If no, why does (A) only 4 people on Wikipedia represent "consensus" (especially when there are just as many opposed)? And (B) why is a paper that is cited only 1000 times by other researchers considered overwhelmingly significant in the academic community? (Full disclosure, I am close friends with several PhDs, so please do not make an "appeal to authority" fallacy that suggests academics are somehow these mystical elite people - as I know them, and the complain all the time about messed up things are even though they themselves have multiple published papers).
2. If yes, then why (A) is it rejected? And (B) why does Neo4j (and other databases) get a pass despite the fact it has a comparable amount of stars (3100) and the majority of its WIkipedia page are self-citations to its own website or GitHub or Twitter? The remaining important ones I am able to find comparable citations (see below).
3. Comparable citations: (A) After seeing the highscalability citation on Neo4j I was able to dig up a highscalability article by the same author with a curated list including GunDB (http://highscalability.com/blog/2016/3/25/stuff-the-internet-says-on-scalability-for-march-25th-2016.html - I will be adding this to the GunDB Wikipedia page). (B) Or is it that Neo4j has funding (https://angel.co/neo4j-3)? So does GunDB (https://angel.co/gun , and no these aren't PR pages, the investors have to approve of their listings so it is a verifiable source). If the policy/standard is so clear, could somebody explain what the formula is without using the vague words "significant" or "notable"?
4. I hope you can see I am asking very straightforward and logical questions that should have reasonable answers, I want to emphasize that I am not being satirical. Either the answers (A) are not known, and there is an unfair double standard being imposed, or (B) the answer is known and not in my favor but once explained I'll finally understand (I have already admitted to wrongs that EdJohnston has correct me on), or (C) the answer is known and it is in my favor, in which case my contributions should be acceptable.
Looking forward to your responses! I'll also be replying in another section regarding the Wikipedia page. :) Tmobii (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Kgfleischmann you are also one of the disputed editors along with HighKing, EdJohnston's request for us to do a CfP was to get a third party opinion which yours (and mine) are not here - you are violating CfP policy guidelines by trying to influence them. Also, he was the one that recommended the CfP after he stated that quote, so do not act like EdJohnston agrees with you (I'm not acting like he agrees with me). EdJohnston accepted and approved that this discussion needs to move forward and is not a closed subject, so please be courtesy to others by not trying to silence me/others just because we disagree with your opinions. Everybody is entitled to an opinion here but more important is to lay out facts and arguments as I have done elsewhere (since they do not belong here - and I am still waiting for your reply in those other sections, can't wait to see them!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmobii (talkcontribs) 14:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Please read WP:RFC where it clearly states All editors (including IP users) are welcome to respond to any RfC. -- HighKing++ 14:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: In an RfC there is no requirement that editors previously in the dispute should stay away. That is not the meaning of 'third party'. I also caution User:Tmobii that his attitude is not what we expect here. If he seems to be here only to promote his interest and unwilling to edit neutrally, he may be sanctioned. Having you lecture others on Wikipedia policy when you have only recently learned how to sign your posts suggests a lack of humility. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
EdJohnston, thank you for clarifying, I was honestly under the impression that (Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief) required existing editors to be neutral - but I trust your opinion, so I am wrong. Although I am confused, because what is the point of an RfC? I thought it was to help mediate debates with new input, not just rehashing old arguments? Now that I know better, I'll start responding to the arguments in kind. Thank you for clarifying, I'm not trying to be arrogant (to the extent I tried to be clear about stating I'm not acting assuming you agree with me). Tmobii (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yesish - think you are tangling notability with peer-review, and this doesn't detail the how you mean to apply and where, but I think you mean inclusion in the list of "notable graph databases. Yes, GitHub is suitable source for the purposes of indications on what is "notable" enough to go into the list. This is not WP:N notability in the sense of deserving it's own page, and it's not stating what mechanism you'll use on that data or cutoff levels -- it's just saying this is a prominent, decent and well-recognized place to look that others already use for published articles and scholarly works, much as one might say Google hitcount as a decent point of factual data. I'd say this is in the nature of an ongoing Opinion poll or peer inputs. This is not "peer-review" in the WP:RS sense of providing text, and you'll have to avoid doing WP:OR of making your own interpretations, it's just a raw datapoint that TALK should be able to respect in making decisions about what goes into the table. Supporting examples of GitHub data use ...
Measuring programming language popularity Wikipedia already mentions GitHub as indicator
Arxiv On the popularity of GitHubs applications]
UC Davis - StackOverflow and GitHub: Associations Between Software Development and Crowdsourced Knowledge
InfoWorld GitHub's top 10 rock-star projects
RedMonk Programming Language Rankings (using GitHub)
Wired - How GitHub Conquered...
Fossbytes - Top Programming Languages on Github
Data Just Right: Introduction to Large-Scale Data & Analytics (book)
IEEE use of GitHub

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

-- HighKing indicated openness to changing the standards for inclusion, if there is consensus. Should we allow a particular number of GitHub stars to qualify for inclusion in the list? Michaelmalak (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
One of the dangers of using any user-generated content as a reference is that the system can be gamed (in much the same way as Amazon reviews have been gamed, etc). If we reach agreement that a particular number of GitHub stars pretty much eliminates "hacking" the system, then I think it might work. How do we decide how many stars is enough? Looking at the current list of products, ArangoDB has 2,800, Cayley (released by Google) has 8,730, Neo4j has 3,100, Orientdb has 2,700. Are you thinking that the bar should be set at a level comparable with those projects? -- HighKing++ 20:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Neo4j is the gold standard of Open Source graph databases, so a comparable amount of stars to that is a good qualification requirement. However I'll respectfully defer to User:Michaelmalak - thoughts? Tmobii (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Neo4j is notable because it has a massive number of secondary sources. Although I was in favor of GitHub stars to establish notability, it appears I am in the minority and I defer to the consensus. Michaelmalak (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Alright, then I guess we can close this RfC.
User:Michaelmalak related, could you explain WP:WP:CONSENSUS works - as it states "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)"? The current "vote" would be 4-3 (HighKing, Kgfleischmann, David Epstein, EEng) to (Markbassett, Tmobii, Michaelmalak) which is a 57% - 43% split which seems hardly conclusive. And while I am biased, Markbassett by far gave the most comprehensive response which nobody objected to. Thanks, Tmobii (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Per others agreements not to close this (see section below), I propose a good mechanic may be "comparable" to other Open Source databases listed - these are currently Arango, Cayley, Neo4j, and Orient. Or should a minimum be required? Or a ratio? Tmobii (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No per WP:ITSPOPULAR. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No Makes about as much sense as a Google hit count. EEng 08:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No, for reasons given above by Kgfleischmann and others. As so often, I've only been summoned to this RfC when it's about to close. I wish this wouldn't happen. Maproom (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No for reasons previously given. I think some of the points confused the principle of whether personal criteria for notability should be regarded as compelling (which they should not until they are formally adopted in WP), with the question of whether the article is OK (looks OKish to me, though the list contains evaluative expressions ("high-performance ", "most popular", "highly scalable " etc) that I reckon are out of place (git or no git). In any case I much fear that the software list might become unwieldy and unmaintainable in future and would be happy to see it removed or at least segregated into another article, or perhaps replaced with pointers to independent sites that deal with relevant products). As for notability, I reckon that notability is basically a matter of common sense and in cases of dispute the notability should be granted by default; I have seen disputes where non-professionals in a field decry a topic as non-notable, but professionals point out that it is highly notable in the field. JonRichfield (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No (bot-summonned). First of all, the actual question asked by the RfC, Is GitHub's ranking system a credible source of peer review? can safely be answered this way, because no number of "upvotes" amounts to a review (which implies critical analysis; this may have been performed by all those who bookmarked it or none, we have no way to tell). A better question, producing an Wikipedia consensus for or against an editing decision, would have been "does GitHub's ranking system confer notability?" - to which the answer is still no.
Although search engine hits or github rankings are in themselves not enough to prove notability, they can certainly be indicators; but those are not considered enough sourcing for notability purposes. This is well-written in WP:GOOGLEHITS, and I see no reason to make an exception here. TigraanClick here to contact me 20:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Time to close this?[edit]

There hasn't been any activity here for a good few days. The consensus appears to be that we should not regard GitHub stars as an indication of notability. Are we agreed that this is an "close"? I don't think that waiting another couple of days will change matters. -- HighKing++ 15:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Further discussion on User:Markbassett's comments would be beneficial before close. He is the only one here that has laid out a case which other editors could not disagree with. Tmobii (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Markbassett talked a lot about the notability of github, what's worthless here, as the notability of github does not imply the notability of a project in it. -> Close --Kgfleischmann (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
GitHub is already recognized and in common use as an indicator of popularity -- similar to counting number of google hits, but more direcly indicating usage. I suggest accept that and move on to working out an acceptable mechanics of 'how many stars' or whatever the mechanics of using it will be in this setting. Markbassett (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
To quote him directly -- oh, nevermind, User:Markbassett posted as I was quoting, I'll leave it to what he said. I agree with this view and if possible (User:Kgfleischmann if you could also answer my question on 4-3 consensus above) would rather keep this open until a mechanic for list inclusion can be determined (since others seemed to be open to this as a compromise). Thank you! Tmobii (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I see no reason to answer. Again Wikipedia has rules and your should learn to accept them. Here is the wrong place to change the rules of notability. EOD from my side. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
From what I see above (and assuming Tmobii !votes "Yes") that makes it 4-2. -- HighKing++ 13:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Nobody is proposing changing the rules of Wikipedia. WP:SAL states a "selection criteria" can be developed. The vote is 4-3 not 4-2 (HighKing, Kgfleischmann, David Epstein, EEng) to (Markbassett, Tmobii, Michaelmalak). As far as closing, it is 3-2 against closing (Markbassett, Mark viking, Tmobii) to (HighKing, Kgfleischmann). Tmobii (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Since neither you nor Michaelmalak have registered !votes here, strictly speaking the !vote was 4-1 (changed since). Since your opinion is very clear on the matter and you opened the RfC, we are safe to count your !vote. We cannot count Michaelmalak since he did not register a !vote and his comments are ambiguous since it could be read that he explicitly does not want to register a !vote and will defer to the consensus. -- HighKing++ 14:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
While I believe a consensus is forming or has formed, I think it is best to wait for an uninvolved editor to close the RFC. --Mark viking (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment on appropriateness of this RfC[edit]

I'm creating this section here because I don't want to "pollute" the !voting area above with lots of comments. This RfC states "Per admin EdJohnston's recommendation of a RfC here (User_talk:EdJohnston#Graph_Database), determining a policy for measuring Open Source software's notability would be useful. I propose: Is GitHub's ranking system a credible source of peer review?"
There's a few things wrong with that statement. User:EdJohnston did not "recommend" an RfC - his actual comments were:

The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. You are likely to be disappointed if you try to use Github as a basis for showing notability. Consider opening a WP:Request for comment at Talk:Graph database if you wish. But the fact that not a single person agrees with you does suggest that you would not be successful there. If GUN has actual users, has anyone published their experience, or mentioned their use of GUN in a scientific publication? EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Second, there's nothing on EdJohnston's Talk page about "determining a policy for measuring Open Source software's notability" and Thirdly, if this RfC genuinely intends to determine "policy", it is in the wrong place. It is nonsense to think that we can determine a "policy" that affects other pages at this Talk page. In my opinion, this RfC has been improperly and poorly phrased and should be closed since we cannot determing policy here. -- HighKing++ 13:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:SAL states lists can develop their own selection criteria. That is what is being discussed from the context of this Talk page. Yes, EdJohnston stated (as you quoted) "Consider opening a" RfC which I took as a recommendation - I don't see how or why this is a bad thing.
On the specific note of GunDB being restored to the list (it had longstanding consensus since 2015 see [1] below) EdJohnston's comments of "... actual users, has anyone published their experience, or..." has already been complied with, see (2) of Talk:Graph_database#Why_can't_I_add_an_entry_for_a_new_Graph_Database_into_the_list? where Michaelmalak also has the exact same requirement "preferably an article that either interviews actual users of the database". According to this alone, GunDB should be restored to the list.
[1] GunDB was added in 2015 by user Levlev32 here and had longstanding consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graph_database&oldid=693524343
It was removed/reverted by an anonymous IP for an invalid reason (claimed it wasn't a graph database) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graph_database&diff=725428050&oldid=725139748 .
User D3x0r restored it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graph_database&diff=744210160&oldid=744035674 . After this, a revert war began.
Then I came along, noticing that ArangoDB, GunDB, and Cayley were all removed/reverted again and have tried to help restore the list (which all now except GunDB has been restored to the previous longstanding consensus) with citations that complied with list inclusion requirements (see my above comments complying with EdJohnston's and Michaelmalak's requests). Tmobii (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:SAL is intended for articles that are *only* composed of lists - typically articles titled "List of X" or "List of Y" - and not for lists contained within articles. You misquoted EdJohnston in a way to make it sound as if he endorsed and supported your view whereas the opposite was true since he stated you should "consider" opening one and he qualified this by stating his opinion that not a single person agrees with you and he doubts you would be successful.
You have not responded to the actual question - the "appropriateness" of this RfC (based on your wording). -- HighKing++ 13:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

I've been back and forth over this and other Talk pages trying to determine why we're having an RfC over GitHub's ranking system as a credible source of peer review. GitHub explains its star system as either:

1. Creating a bookmark for easier access
2.Showing appreciation to the repository maintainer for their work.

There is nothing to suggest that the star system has anything to do with a "peer review".
We agree that the standard for inclusion in a list within an article is a different standard to the standard for a topic being notable enough for its own article. That (lower) standard is "whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies". Unfortunately, WP:WEIGHT does not help as it doesn't mention lists specifically. But it is generally accepted that the purpose of lists within articles are generally used to inform readers of items relevant to the topic *but* are *not* intended to be complete listing of all known items - see WP:NOTCATALOG. In this article, we have more than enough notable products to populate a list of sample products. A more appropriate test of consensus would be to determine the standard for inclusion in the list in *this* article. -- HighKing++ 13:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

From all the responses so far, it already seems like people are discussing this as a selection criteria for this list - not all of Wikipedia. So agreed.
GitHub's ranking system has been proposed for the Open Source projects, as Markbassett has very thoroughly provided reasoning of why and how it should be accepted and cited numerous amounts of sources to back that up, which nobody disagreed with, advancing the discussion forward to what mechanic should be used. Those recommendations are a great way to determine catalog/notcatalog, and I suggest we continue with that discussion.
Finally, both Michaelmalak and EdJohnston recommended (see citations above) "preferably an article that either interviews actual users of the database" which nobody has disagreed with either, but items added to the list matching those requirements have been reverted for no further reason. Tmobii (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of what people are talking about, the result will be based on the wording of the RfC. That discussion belongs in the section above.
You state that GitHub's ranking system has been proposed for Open Source projects. Please clarify - proposed for what exactly?
You stated above (in the wrong section) that several people have asked if there are any interviews with end users of the product. What they mean are actual interviews. With end users. And those interviews published in an independent source. And that source meets the criteria in WP:RS. Here's examples from another article being considered for deletion: this and this. When people asked about "peer reviews" they were looking for reviews like the ones I posted.
You posted the following:
Peer Review. The argument, which was ignored and not addressed, is that GitHub provides peer review. The claim that GitHub stars have "no editorial oversight" would be true if star count was self-reported, but this is not the case. The project has over 2,700 stars which is quite notable (compare to Orient which is included in the list, at 2,600 and Neo4j at 3,100). It is significantly more notable to have 2,700 independent affirmations than it is to have "editorial oversight" by an editor or editor(s). We do not throw out academic papers just because they are "user generated".
You have not provided any reference or evidence that states it is a peer review system and your logic is original research. The description provided by GitHub itself on GitHub stars does not state that it is a "measure" of anything or that it is a peer review system. Just because others have done it (including the references provided by Markbassett) does not make it acceptable and is clearly synthesised.
You are also misquoting Maskbassett. He specifically states that "you are tangling notability with peer review" and states that GitHub is "a suitable source for the purposes of indications on what is notable enough to go into the list contained in this article" and "This is not peer-review in the WP:RS sense of providing text and you'll have to avoid doing WP:OR of making your own interpretations". You appear to have ignored everything he wrote after "Yesish".
The references provided by Markbassett reinforce what he says - that it is one datapoint and that it is a datapoint for popularity. I argue that the datapoint is useless for the purposes of inclusion in this list. The criteria for inclusion in the list is based on consensus, independent confirmation that the item belongs in the list and a measure of notability from an independent source. There is no criteria that mentions popularity. The references provided by Markbasset reinforce the idea that GitHub can be used to measure popularity but nothing about notability. So I agree with Markbasset on nearly everything he says but I don't agree that GitHub popularity (on its own) is a useful measure but I can see that if it is used in conjuction with other data points, it may have relevance. -- HighKing++ 14:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2017[edit]

Add Microsoft Graph as one of the notable graph databases; details at

https://graph.microsoft.io

Add the text below (extracted from the site) to describe

Microsoft Graph exposes multiple APIs from Office 365 and other Microsoft cloud services through a single endpoint: https://graph.microsoft.com. Microsoft Graph simplifies queries that would otherwise be more complex. 193.61.255.83 (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

If you are sure, Microsoft Graph is notable, write article about it. I take care, it will be added.--Kgfleischmann (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
"Microsoft Graph: in April 2015 Microsoft launched the preview of the Microsoft Graph as the unified API endpoint for its productivity services under Office 365 and Azure AD" does not really sound like a graph database. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Microsoft Graph has nothing to do with Graph databases. -- HighKing++ 19:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: No consensus to add. — Sam Sailor 00:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

To add to previous request, https://graph.microsoft.io/en-us/docs says...

You can use Microsoft Graph to:

Access data from multiple Microsoft cloud services, including Azure Active Directory, Exchange Online as part of Office 365, SharePoint, OneDrive, OneNote, and Planner. Navigate between entities and relationships.

The diagram and narrative shows it is a Graph [like] front end to the individual services (Exchange, SharePoint), and, more importantly, to "insights and relationships from Office Graph". Perhaps Office Graph is the graph database.

This is explained further in this support.office.com link

Not a DB guru or software developer, but Microsoft make increasingly frequent references to Office Graph. It is probably the case that Office Graph *IS* a graph database, and Microsoft Graph is a Graph-like query language (again, forgive my naivete) to both non-graph datastores (Exchange, SharePoint) and the Office Graph data store.

This is probably the biggest graph database that no one has ever heard of! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.105.83 (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I reiterate, Microsoft Graph has nothing to do with Graph databases. Similarly, Office Graph has nothing to do with Graph databases. It is beyond the scope of this Talk page to provide you with a detailed response especially as you appear to have no prior knowledge of databases or Graph databases or web services or proxy gateways, etc. -- HighKing++ 20:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done:Sam Sailor 02:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Request to add GRAKN.AI to the list[edit]

Hi there - I'd like to add GRAKN.AI (https://grakn.ai) to the list of graph databases on the article page. Disclaimer: I am a technical writer at the company.

References:

Name: GRAKN.AI - Version: v0.10 - Licence: GPL v3 - Language: Java - Description: GRAKN.AI is a database in the form of a knowledge graph that uses machine reasoning to simplify data processing for AI applications.

And I would also suggest the addition of Graql (not GraphQL) which is the query language.

Please can you consider my request and let me know if it is acceptable? Stichbury (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @Stichbury: In the future, you may place {{edit request}} to indicate such proposed edits with a conflict of interest; that places them in a special queue for veteran editors to review. I have done that for you. (I tend to think the entry is not notable enough to be added, but it is not a clear-cut case, so I will let a reviewer take this one.) TigraanClick here to contact me 10:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Stichbury: I am leaning towards a 'deny of this request. There are not enough independent third-party articles (intellectually separate) to justify inclusion at this point in time. Has the product been reviewed in a third party publication? -- HighKing++ 17:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
      • @HighKing: Many thanks for getting back to me. I don't have a third party publication to include just yet, although expect to have something soon. I will wait for now and resubmit the request when there is more coverage in 3rd party publications for reference. Thanks again. Stichbury (talk)

I thought this was an article about Graph Databases[edit]

I would like to remove every reference to SQL and relational databases. For one, the comparison is inaccurate, misleading, and plain wrong in some cases (I agree with a previous poster that this seems to have been written by marketing people for some Graph Database product). The other reason is that I did not come to this page wondering how graph databases compared to relational ones, I wanted to find out more about graph databases, period. Graph database people must really be insecure about their "graphiness" to feel the need to state over and over just how much better they are than relational in this versus that.

Also, why not talk about essentiality, in the graph database, it seems the node, the edge, and the property are all essential, meaning that without all three, information about something would not longer be derivable. This is not a good thing, as it certainly adds complexity and no additional expressive power. Not to mention the fact that in certain examples of graph database imply an ordering, and that ordering is also essential (again, without it, certain information is lost).

If I wanted marketing hype, I will go elsewhere, and I did not expect wikipedia to allow such biased, disgusting prose on its website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.124.211.150 (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Vague Big-O claims[edit]

   Technically, this sort of lookup is completed in O(log(n)) + O(1) time, that is, roughly relative to the logarithm of the size of the data. In contrast, the relational version would be multiple O(log(n)) lookups, plus more time to join all the data.

The above sentence from the article is very vague. On one hand, O(log(n)) + O(1) is equal to O(log(n)), and "multiple lookups plus more time" is just too vague. Is it a constant multiple and a constant time? Then it's just O(log(n)) again. Is it a multiple depending on the depth of the relation, then you need a second variable (as not everything can be expressed in relation to the DB size).

When using Big-O notation, it should at least be used in a theoretical correct way as intended IMO. If it's not needed to be theoretical correct (but f.e. rather show empirical results), then it should use a different notation. --2A02:1811:C50F:A500:C52:BE35:D390:71FA (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

I propose that the Network model and Graph database articles be merged together for the following reasons: 1) They are conceptually the same thing 2) The network model may be considered a historical version of what is now commonly referred to as the graph database 3) There is not enough content on the Network model page to be considered good quality, it may be better to have a single, better quality page than two distinct articles with closely related themes 4) Although implementation details may differ and graph databases offer more flexibility than traditional network model databases, this does not preclude them from being considered in the same family of databases

Strongly disagree. The network (Codasyl) model handles a very specific kind of graph, it relies on a strict schema, and it has a defined data manipulation language. They are not all conceptually the same thing. Mhkay (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Mhkay that this should not be merged with the network model page. Graph databases are specific type of datastore whereas the network model is a specific type of methodology for modeling data within a datastore. The network model is a conceptual model of how you can model and represent your data in a flexible manner of a graph whereas a graph database implements a data store that uses fundamental graph structures as the underlying data structures. Bechbd (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
In addition to what Mhkay and Bechbd have said, consider the pedigree of modern graph databases. It seems like quite a stretch to say that Neo4j -- to take one example -- is related to CODASYL, whereas it is closely related to the Semantic Web effort that was in full swing at the time of its creation. Joshsh (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)