Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graylog

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I would like to ask participants in AfD debates to keep their comments at a reasonable length. Admins really have not the time (nor usually the inclination) to go through dozens of external links. Please realize that to keep an article it is sufficient to give only a few good sources. I would encourage especially De-Stavness to familiarize them with WP:RS. Thanks. Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graylog

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable startup with little to no coverage in reliable independent sources. Nothing unique about it and does not compare to the industry leaders like Splunk(which basically does the same thing at a scale 100x). Daiyusha (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi let's not be too hasty with deleting this article, please. I have some information for you that I hope will change your mind.

1. ---> "A non-notable startup with little to no coverage in reliable independent sources" Graylog is consistently mentioned alongside Splunk and is reliably in the top 5-10 when discussing the top log management companies. A quick Google search will tell you that.

Look through some of these links, these sources below which are considered to be very reliable and independent.

https://www.comparitech.com/net-admin/log-management-tools/ - a company that openly admits it earns by linking to various softwares it "advertises". Not-independent
https://stackify.com/best-log-management-tools/ - This is a list of 51 logging tools, this is not an acceptable claim of notability even for companies like splunk.
https://www.infoworld.com/article/3063614/9-splunk-alternatives-for-log-analysis.html - Again a list of 9 Splunk alternatives, not considered significant coverage
https://dzone.com/articles/top-10-log-management-tools-1 - Again a list
https://www.infoworld.com/article/2885752/open-source-graylog-puts-splunk-on-notice.html - A significant mention, this one counts.
https://opensource.com/article/18/9/open-source-log-aggregation-tools - Not a reliable source, anyone can have a chance to contribute here.

2. ---> "Nothing unique about it" There are many unique aspects. I can add in an extra paragraph about why Graylog is unique if you think that will help improve the quality of the article. I don't this it is reasonable to request outright deletion over this, perhaps do you have a suggestion or constructive criticism on this?

3. ---> "does not compare to the industry leaders like Splunk(which basically does the same thing at a scale 100x)" - Sir, people are having this conversation all the time. DevOps teams, sysadmins & others are comparing Graylog to Splunk legitimately. For many businesses, they can't pay the high cost to have Splunk so they look to other more affordable options (open source or enterprise). Again, there are pros and cons to both, but there is nothing wrong with including a comparison if that conversation is already being had.

Here are links to notable reliable 3rd party sources where these comparisons are happening all the time:

https://www.gartner.com/reviews/market/security-information-event-management/compare/graylog-vs-splunk - This is a comparison tool, not an article. There are about 30 logging tools here and you can compare any permutation of those. Usually articles written by a person are accpeted.
https://devops.com/log-monitoring-and-analysis-comparing-elk-splunk-and-graylog/ - similar to opensource.com anyone can contribute. Thus not reliable.
https://www.trustradius.com/compare-products/graylog-vs-splunk-enterprise - Another comparison tools
https://stackshare.io/stackups/graylog-vs-logstash-vs-splunk-cloud - Comparison tool
https://www.itcentralstation.com/products/comparisons/graylog_vs_splunk - Comparison tool
https://www.slant.co/versus/963/965/~splunk_vs_graylog2 - Non-reliable site, comparison tool

Splunk is clearly the leader in the log management space, nobody disputes this. Just because Splunk happens to be the leader in the space doesn't mean Graylog should be banned from Wikipedia or make Graylog any less legitimate. You seem to be very concerned about mentioning Splunk in the article. Is there anything wrong with that?

I am asking for you to reconsider this deletion request and instead tell me where you think this article needs to be adjusted. This is a legitimate company that is well known in the log management space and deserves to be on Wikipedia.

Thank you I look forward to working with you and the other editors to make this article better. De-Stavness (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: People will have a discussion for about a week, and If people find sources that are supportive, your article stays. That said, there are a lot of problems with most sources you mentioned .I've marked the reason why they aren't reliable enough, Please don't be offended. Wikipedia usually asks for multiple independent, reliable sources for companies. Daiyusha (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I've put together another list of sources that I believe to be reliable and independent. I've included a mix of sources from education and governmental websites, to news sources, and to articles mentioning the company or product in a significant way. Graylog has international users/clients so some of the sources come from all around the globe.

Again there are more mentions and sources I am just trying to find what you consider legitimate. Please look these through and let me know what you think. Thank you.

In the news

Articles where Graylog is the focus

Education mentions

Goverment mentions

Award Graylog and Splunk Enterprise Security among Security Incident and Event Management Data Quadrant Gold Medalists

http://virtual-strategy.com/2018/08/30/software-reviews-names-graylog-and-splunk-enterprise-security-among/

Wikipedia pages already linking to Graylog --> (http://docs.graylog.org/en/latest/pages/gelf.html)

Graylog has been around since 2009 so there are a lot or sources I am just trying to find the ones you will consider to be the most important. Thank you and I am looking forward to the discussion.

De-Stavness (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was a solid independent/reliable article as well. Not a comparison article:

https://blogs.gartner.com/jonah-kowall/2015/01/27/cool-vendor-pick-graylog/

De-Stavness (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic is notable and informative Germcrow (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage at Gartner and InfoWorld suggests coverage from multiple reliable independent secondary sources providing signficant coverage and thus meeting WP:NCORP requirements. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is largely promotional, WP:NOTPROMOTION - Graylog has not done anything unique, just a different version of existing services - does not meet WP:ORGSIG, the company has not "had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." - Epinoia (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion, the topic meets the criteria. I removed the repeated sentence and I removed the part about "regularly attending" conferences as it is not relevant to the topic. I would like to see a little more information on the actual product with references. But as it is, it passes the criteria in WP:NCORP. HighKing 16:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per HighKing. Article seems to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article. The article observed WP:NCORP.Forest90 (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.