Talk:Alpha Five

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Secondary Sources

I have proceeded to specify, instead of citing Alpha as a "long established player", as one that has been producing its product related to database software, since 1982. The end reader may perceive 25 years as they will. Thank you for keeping the article true to the facts.24.251.68.172 05:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the {{primarysources}} tag because most of the the article's assertions are not backed-up with third-party references. More than half of the content of the article, for example, is devoted to enumerating the companies which are "customers" of this product. The only reference given is the publisher's own website, which does not explain how the companies listed are using the product (or if they only bought it to evaluate it), how they feel about the product, if they're still using it, or even confirm if they've ever used it at all.

I'll remove the customer list and your tag.

The article asserts that the product is a "long-established player". This is a bit of peacocking, and probably should be deleted for POV. The reference offered is from a 2005 review; while the review also says "long-established player", it doesn't say how long it's been a "player". How does this compare to truly established database products like DB2? -- Mikeblas 18:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Fact us it came out the same year as DB2, 1982. I'll post it when I can reference a "reliable third-party source". "long-established player" is a quote from PC Magazine. Considering the source I think its safe to assume they are talking about an acceptable time frame for this type of product without having to reference their sources. The only reason I used it is because of the notability tag. In regards to "truly established" I'm not sure what you mean. I don't recall not seeing it next to any of the other products on the shelf, like Paradox (no longer an updated stand-a-alone product), Approach (dead), Filemaker, and Access (no longer a stand-a-alone product) and the company states they have sold 1 million units. PeetMoss 19:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Point is, "long-established" doesn't tell the reader anything specific. Providing a a verifiable (with a reference) initial release date tells readers something very specific and helps them understand the product's longevity. Microsoft Access certainly is a stand-alone product[1], though I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with your list. Companies can state whatever they'd like about their products; on Wikipedia, we look for independent sources to make sure the claims are not inflated and are sensible. -- Mikeblas 20:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
None of Wiki articles on the products I mentioned above contain a verifiable reference on their initial release date. When I find one on Alpha I'll post it. PeetMoss 06:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to add requests to the talk pages of the articles you'd like to see improved! It would be awesome if every article was perfect, or if every article could be improved all at the same time in equal measure. But that's not the way it works, I'm afraid. -- Mikeblas 08:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Million copies

The claim that a million copies of this product have been sold over the last 20 years is given a reference that just goes to the alphasoftware.com root page. Searching the alphasoftware.com site, I get no hits for such a claim, so I've marked the claim as "cite needed" and removed the existing link to the home page. -- Mikeblas 19:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I lost track of where it was on the site. I'll remove it.PeetMoss 20:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Database, front-end tool, or both?

The Alpha Software website says that "Alpha Five is making waves as the leading all-in-one application development environment." [2] This article describes the product as an RDBMS, not as a database development tool. Is it a front-end development tool, a database tool, or both? -- Mikeblas 19:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Both. PeetMoss 20:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The intro to the article should be updated to clarify that, then. Further, it seems like describing the language and facilities the product has might be a good way to enhance the article. -- Mikeblas 20:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll give it a shot. PeetMoss 20:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

The large amount of spam added to a multitude of articles, pointing to this one, makes this article appear as spam as well. There also seems to be some confusion over weather it is a web application framework, a database, a database administration tool or whatnot. Does this article actually fulfill the notability requirements? Jerazol 15:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

my understanding from using it is that is a development framework that includes it own database and works with SQL backends is well. may 27 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zimbabwer (talk • contribs). Hi Jerazol,

This was pursued according to the standards of a moderator, Cholmes75, and they requested proof of notability as well. Link with Sources for Awards and Recognition for Alpha Five Dear Cholmes75,

Thank you for your post.

As per your request, a link has been provided to me which backs up all claims of awards and market recognition, at http://alphasoftware.com/about/releases.asp

I trust that to the left, a menu titled "Quick Links" will direct you to case studies, a press room, featured clients, testimonials, etc.

I look forward to your response,

DonMoKhan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.211.99.100 (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

We provided all of the relevant information before proceeding with this current upload. Thanks!

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Alpha-5-logo.jpg

Image:Alpha-5-logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)