Talk:Imply Data

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is credible information about an important company. Wikipedia has articles about numerous similar companies in the same field including: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Databricks, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trifacta, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DataStax, among many others

The sources cited in the first two of the articles you've cited give the impression that they meet the notability requirement for inclusion. Someone did submit DataStax for deletion, but the discussion led to the conclusion that there were sufficient sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines.

This article doesn't convey the importance of the company. It cites one independent source that gives Imply substantial coverage. (The other sources either are associated with Imply or don't mention it.) I found little else through a Google search. You're welcome to identify other qualifying sources, or at least say something about the company in the article that qualifies as a credible claim of significance to spare it from speedy deletion (though it would, in that case, still be vulnerable to a formal deletion discussion if notability seems unmet). Largoplazo (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. What is required to demonstrate notability? The link isn't entirely clear on the exact criteria. Additional links from a quick google search does yield more material from some reputable new sources and websites: https://techcrunch.com/2016/01/09/the-year-in-analytics/, http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=314646623, https://www.pehub.com/2015/10/druid-startup-imply-takes-in-2-mln-seed/, https://angel.co/imply, https://framasphere.org/posts/1155035, https://www.versioneye.com/nodejs/imply-pivot/0.7.13, http://iq.pivotl.com/article/iN51J7ZKdDE/2015/10/20/imply_raises_usd2m_for_druid_analytics/, http://www.acq5.com/post/druid-startup-imply-takes-in-2-mln-seed/, etc.Fangjinyang (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have the idea, but most of these are awfully short ("Imply did this", "Imply is that", in three or four lines), and I don't think they amount to substantial coverage in multiple sources. The Bloomberg one is the only one that I think qualifies as substantial. But I'm not sure whether Bloomberg listings are considered "coverage in a reliable source" or whether it's an indiscriminate database like IMDB, inclusion in which isn't considered when assessing the notability of a film. It raises a level of doubt, so I'm going to remove the speedy deletion tag, but I'm tagging it as being of unclear notability. Largoplazo (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://docs.imply.io/latest, https://druid.apache.org/index.html etc. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One paragraph (under the "Uses" section) was, indeed, copied from Imply documentation. This would seem to meet all 10 points of the Policy for non-free content. If administrators feel otherwise, these 270 bytes could be rewritten.

The section "Deployment Options" is also copied from Imply documentation. Upon consideration, it is not a critical part of the article and should be removed.

Are there other copyright issues elsewhere in the page that should be addressed?Briskmad (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more information[edit]

I'd like to add several sections to this article, presenting information on the relationship between Imply and Apache Druid, uses of the software, performance, customers, and competitors / alternatives. I think the current article is little more than a stub, and doesn't provide enough information to be useful to users of Wikipedia. Briskmad (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen any comments, so I will plan to make these changes on Sunday, Feb 14 2022 if no one raises any issues. Briskmad (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before you start, I recommend becoming familiar with WP:NOTCATALOG, bullet 6, "A resource for conducting business". The material you say you intend to add includes at least some that seems inappropriate, including lists of competitors and alternatives. For Wikipedia's purposes, "useful to users of Wikipedia" doesn't mean "in making purchasing decisions". Largoplazo (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Largoplazo. I will leave out the competitors / alternatives section.Briskmad (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring Information[edit]

Without placing any comments on this talk page, User:justlettersandnumbers revised this page to their own version, which seems to be a violation of WP:DISPUTE. I am planning on reversing this revision on 20 Sep unless there are objections by other editors. Any thoughts? Briskmad (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Briskmad, I strongly suggest that you seek consensus on this page before doing that, as you should have done before you restored it the last time. I left no comment on this talk-page when I last removed it because I had nothing to add to my edit summary: "Just as before, WP:COI/WP:PAID editors are STRONGLY DISCOURAGED from editing the article, but may propose improvements using {{request edit}} on the talk-page" (typo removed). And no, the version I reverted to was yours – see here; I had not edited the page before that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

justlettersandnumbers, thanks for the quick response. As you might note from the "Adding more information" section on this talk page, I requested comments on 9 Feb, received some great input, and incorporated it into changes made on 14 Feb. In May, you reverted the page not to "my" revisions made after obtaining group consensus in February, but to a version from January, where my contribution was simply inserting and immediately removing a single word to validate my ability to edit a page after experiencing some odd browser errors.

To be clear, as noted in WP:PAID, I do not receive, or expect to receive, compensation for my contributions to Wikipedia, on this nor any other article, other than the satisfaction of having contributed to Wikipedia. Do you (or anyone else reading this) have any objection to the contents of the 14 Feb version of this article, other than your concern that I might be compensated? If not, please either revert to the 14 Feb version or allow me to do so.

Briskmad (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed, I've reverted this page to the version from 8 Mar 2022 as last edited by Largoplazo.Briskmad (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]