On 15 Feb 2006, at 16:07, Steve Bennett wrote:
I know very little about DMExpress - hence the
stubbiness :) Here's
my scenario:
I work in the domain of ETL.
Someone mentions DMExpress. I have no idea what it is.
I head to Wikipedia, my first resource when I want to know what
*anything* is.
No article.
Should there not be an article? There aren't that many ETL tools. Your
analogy is a bit flawed: You're saying that the artist is notable, but
his paintings aren't. The equivalent then would be something like that
the company is notable, but that individual copies of their products
aren't. Really, though, in many cases, the company is not notable,
their product isn't notable, and obviously individual instances of
their products are not.
To resolve the question of whether my example of a stub was above or
below the minimum quality waterline (just as an example, delete it for
all I care :)), we do need to agree whether DMExpress is notable or
not. A brief search shows 800 google results including magazine
articles, so I'm not sure what the "no" argument would be.
I dont know if there should be one. I cant tell from the stub, thats
the problem. The company might be notable (I think that WP:CORP is
a bit restrictive, and should be ignored in many cases). But individual
software products are often not very notable (if I write the history
of software if wont include much about programs that import and export
data). But it of course may be very important; just neither of us know.
I would rather have a good article about ETL including a list of
products
(that could be redirects) than a bunch of stubs that may never be
filled in.
Justinc