Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ANTs Software

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. If you take out the sockpuppets, it's 7-2. Woohookitty 08:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable; a software company with $279,000 revenue on the last 12 months. To admins: their database product deletion page, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ANTs Data Server, had five "keep" votes from sock-puppets, so please check the voters here, too bogdan | ^Talk 14:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vanity or spam DV8 2XL 15:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• According to the proposed Wikipedia importance policy, an article should not be deleted on the basis of notability if one of the following is true:
  1. there is clear proof that a reasonable number of people (eg. more than 500 people worldwide) are or were concurrently interested in the subject.
  2. the subject has been peer-reviewed.
  3. it is an expansion (of reasonable length, not a stub) upon an established subject.
  4. discussion on the article's talk page (using this policy as a guideline) otherwise establishes its importance.
• Of these, I think that there is a chance that point 1 could be true, and points 2-4 are most certainly not true. But point 1 requires "clear proof." Can anyone supply this?
• There's another factor, however. The article as it stands today is uninformative but not otherwise terribly offensive. I suspect we wouldn't be having this discussion if not for the sockpuppets on both Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ANTs Data Server and the fact that some of those same sockpuppets repeatedly posted fiction to Comparison of relational database management systems while making threatening comments to people who reverted their changes in the edit summaries. The sockpuppets, the threats, the posting of fiction, and the stealing of content from other user pages are clearly wrong, but that's not what we're being asked to vote on.
• I suppose the implication of this vote is that if the ANTs page goes away then ANTs could be permanently removed from Comparison of relational database management systems and thereby stop or reduce the sockpuppets posting fiction to that page. Nobody appears to want to actually do the research to make the ANTs content accurate — I certainly don't. I personally believe that it would be fine to include ANTs if someone who cared would look up the real answers to the points on the comparison chart, but until that is done it is better to have ANTs not included than to have misleading / incorrect info on the page.
• At any rate, I'm not passionate about the 500 people interested limit, but I am passionate about issues of fact in article content, so I will decide my vote in the following manner: If the folks posting the ANTs content will remove the hyperbole from this article and fix the factual errors in Comparison of relational database management systems, then I will vote to keep. If the articles remain the way they are I'll vote to delete on the basis of Spam. --Craig Stuntz 16:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have refactored the above for readability, but have also taken the liberty of describing Wikipedia:Importance correctly, as a proposed policy. NO VOTE on this yet. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I sincerely apprecite the clarification regarding proposed policy. But I don't see how merging my paragraphs, which were a single comment and not a vote, into multiple bullet points in the list with the votes improves readability. I put the separator in the original version to make it clear that the discussion was separate from the list of votes since I don't intend to vote until the folks who submitted the ANTs material have a (second, third, whatever) chance to fix it. It's not a huge issue, but... --Craig Stuntz 18:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt they actually have 500 clients. Their server has "an introductory price of just $1,995 per server per year [1]" and a revenue of just $279,000. Yhat means that they have less than 100 servers installed in the last year.
• Anyway, I did a bit of a search on google groups and apparently there were a couple of posts "does anybody knows anything about this db?", but I haven't found any actual user of it. bogdan | ^Talk 19:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Woah, lots of talking. Delete per bogdan. Sdedeo 19:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per bogdan Dottore So 23:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep don't turn this into a personal vendetta Chachka 10:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: user has less than 20 edits and most of them are to articles related to "ANTs". bogdan | ^Talk 11:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it's just a software company that didn't do anything special. The 500 people thing is laughably small. There are that many people in half of one of the student halls at my Uni. -Splash 23:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Splash. Radiant_>|< 06:50, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; I was withholding judgement to see if they were willing to play fair and fix the problems, but the folks behind appear unwilling to fix the factually inaccurate and POV text they created. They've had their second chance, and third, and... --Craig Stuntz 14:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is hilarious. Check out the database page.. Bogdan got into a huge fight with this guy and then went on a rampage against all the articles they posted. Minkor 19:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  This vote is "Minkor's" first contribution to Wikipedia.--Craig Stuntz 19:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see how revenue is relevant here. Why are hundereds of companies that are losing money listed on here then? Tetratek 08:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Revenue is not profit. The revenue is the total amount of money received from selling products. One company may have billions of dollars in revenue and still be losing money. The revenue is relevant in here because it shows the number of products sold.

  Also, please note that user has less than 50 edits. bogdan | ^Talk 09:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the page, the company definitely has more than 500 people interested. (619,000 articles on google alone, plus most people in the RDBMS community are well aware of ANTs Manifoldmop 19:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  User's first edit and already banned. Must be a record or something. (I removed the insult) Also, the 619,000 articles are about ants, i.e. the insects. :-) bogdan | ^Talk 19:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually you are wrong, search for ants returns 5 million pages and the point on revenue is wrong as well because there are numerous companies (research, medical, nanotech, etc) that post zero or negative revenue and yet are quite significant. Chachka 22:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  No, there are only 897 hits for "ANTS Data Server". Compare with 3,140,000 hits for "Microsoft SQL Server".

  Also, from the definition of revenue results that negative revenue is simply not possible. :-) bogdan | ^Talk 09:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. TroelsArvin 09:00, 9 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.