Talk:InfluxDB

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Notability

Since the notability banner was added various references have been added including:

Citations for 24 million dollars in funding in two separate rounds from a reliable technical reporting website (tech crunch)
Affiliation with Y-Combinator, a very well known start up incubator.

I feel this is enough to make this notable.

(Talpedia (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I have to say that I disagree. A mention in tech crunch and significant funding rounds and an affiliation with Y-Combinator may be seen as great company achievements, but please take a read of WP:GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the specific WP:GNG you're disagreeing with, but I see InfluxDB as very similar to Mongo, except with significantly more open source contributor activity (it's significnatly less centralized in its development). They are one of the most popular open source Go projects, albeit not as marketing-savvy as Mongo. What kind of coverage do you expect of a time-series database to make it "noteworthy"? There simply aren't many of them out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.129.58 (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More reasons for notability

Yep, I spent quite a lot of time reading policy documents before making this change :). Well those are the things that are easy to reference, with sources that wikipedians like.

Additional reasons for notability are:

Minor technical point: two mentions in techcruch separated by a number of months.
Minor technical point This is open source software not a company, I suspect some of the company references were an attempt to meet notability standards
Graphite is massively broadly used within lots of companies (e.g. etsy). You get meet up groups of graphite use. This is one of the only real competitors in this space.
It's an open source project with a large and mature codebase and multiple contributors. The standards for open source projects should probably be different from proprietary software companies. Notice it is the software rather than the company that has an entry.
It's open source and broadly used (9000 stars and 1200 forks on github)

How do people feel about citations pointing at github? The nature of the tech "discourse community" is that

There's a bit of an absence of "reliable sources", instead of peer review you get blog posts, hacker news, stack overflow questions and github repositories which serve a similar role
Easy access to information, blogs, and active informal communication methods decrease the role of the press in the development space.

Anyway, that's a lot of words. The fact that "notability = references to sources" aside

Do people feel that this is intrinsically not notable, or would better sources help?
I could go digging in obscure software engineering journals and probably find something, I'm not so sure of being able to get something from the press.
How do people feel about references to github, stackoverflow and blogs for notability?

(Talpedia (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Some further links that might be useful in estabilishing notability

I kind of forgot about the role of books and conferences. Influxdb seems to be old enough to show up in many books, though there is no book purely on influxdb.

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/devops-automation-cookbook/9781784392826/ch08.html, this book has a section on influxdb.
Here are more books that mention or recommend influxdb here: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=influxdb#q=influxdb&tbm=bks&start=0
There are several talks on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=influxdb), though * I'm not sure which of them can be considered notable conferences, this talk seems to mention influxdb https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OB0w4b_3l0 at the popular, community-run europython
There is also a talk on grafana and influxdb at the pydata conference in london. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4CNBqGoYRA

I don't have a good feeling for where the line of notability stands for "special interest topics", I think the talk paged for this failed proposal might relevant Wikipedia talk: Software notability

(Talpedia (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, thank you for spending the time to find references. The relevant policies are WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:RS. You asked about using GitHub stars as an indicator of notability but WP:RS disallows user-generated content. There is also a discussion/RfC at Talk:Graph database asking the same question so you might want to comment there as well. Also WP:RS disallows blogs. And YouTube.

But the books are great references and should be put into the article as these are gold standards (mostly) in establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is "line protocol backwards compatible with Graphite" really?

The article reads:

It defines a line protocol backwards compatible with Graphite and takes the form: measurement(,tag_key=tag_val)* field_key=field_val(,field_key_n=field_value_n)* (nanoseconds-timestamp)?

Is it really backwards compatible with Graphite, though? According to [1], the second field is a numerical metric value. However, according to the article, InfluxDB uses, at minimum, a key-value pair. Can we drop the incorrect Graphite reference? Or, if that's indeed correct, provide a proof-reference? Hot basket (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]