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