Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ActiveQuant

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 delete. Kurykh 05:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ActiveQuant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Notability for open source financial package has not been established. Ronnotel (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this ActiveQuant marked for deletion? It's in the same style and on the same context of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantlib . What is your criteria for notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.98.196 (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria for notability can be found at WP:N. Essentially, there should be multiple citations by independent, reliable sources to be considered notable. Ronnotel (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is a search result of 577 sources on google: ::http://www.google.de/search?q=ActiveQuant+-site:activequant.org+-site:activestocks.de+-site:activestocks.eu&hl=de&start=0&sa=N not notable ? It is the most active project by mailing list activity on nabble.com, even more active than quickfix, etc. : http://www.nabble.com/Financial-Software-f1033.html

If you delete this article, you'll have to remove almost every software article in wikipedia. ActiveQuant made it even into the Top 20 vital projects on Freshmeat: http://www.nabble.com/News-from-Freshmeat-to14249153.html - that's something only a fraction of other open source software projects have achieved,yet. Also keep in mind that ActiveQuant is gaining more and more influence, some jobs (see http://www.gojobs.com/seeker/jobdetail.asp?jobnum=4507125&jbid=1625 ) require people to have knowledge of ActiveQuant (as well as of Quantlib).

If you delete this page, you also have to delete for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centericq , so, please don't delete it as it, as in my eyes, this deletion request is completely unjustified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.98.196 (talk • contribs)

(above comment re-formatted)Please review the criteria for reliable sources. In order to be notable, the subject of the article must receive significant coverage by independent reliable sources. To be considered reliable, a source must have an editorial process in place that WP can rely on to verify the content it publishes. Blog write-ups, forum participation, web-sites, etc., are all considered unreliable. If you can find some description of ActiveQuant in the industry publications, that might do it. However, what's been listed so far isn't enough to establish notability. Ronnotel (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not a good idea to delete this page. ActiveQuant is the successor of CCAPI2 - a leading open source automatic trading system (ATS) based on Java. After having looked at about 20 such systems - I find, that there is no better and more promising project around to develop an ATS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.34.239 (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• QuantLib is a product with totally different purpose, although seems to be similar in some ways. Perhaps, because both products use word "quant" in it and both are finance-related. But QuantLib is a labrary of math algorithms and ActiveQuant is a trading platform. It is growing in popularity, its free and open source, just like Wikipedia content is. Why should it be deleted? (Yuryr) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.111.202 (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This may, indeed, be a remarkable and notable product. If so, I have been unable to find any good evidence. My Google search turned up a remarkable 13,200 hits. Google very kindly, though, pointed out that this actually consisted of only 21 distinctly different hits. The large percentage of these 21 were from "activestocks" sites of one sort or another. None of the hits, in my opinion, led to significant coverage by independent reliable sources. I will be happy to be shown to be wrong. If this really is a well-known and important application, there should be reliable coverage which can be listed. Tim Ross·^talk 00:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete delete as per Tim Ross RogueNinja_talk 17:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete agreed. Pundit|utter 19:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• And what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centericq , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gajim , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnucash , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetaStock , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gstock , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qtstalker , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TA-Lib , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicharts , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentaho , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JGnash , do you want to delete these products' pages too ? I think you should delete 95% of all software sites listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Business_software_stubs . Why don't you start with a project that is more irrelevant ? Don't you have anything else to do than bother people trying to improve the world for all ? We are working hard to achieve media coverage, for example we are currently working to get some papers in some magazines published, but this takes time. What sort of coverage do you want ? I will aggregate a list and put it on that wiki page and then we can continue to discuss. (ustaudinger, 12/25/2007)

• comment. For those who are in support of this article, please, it does not help your cause to attack other products or other Wikipedia articles. What will help is to find reviews and discussions of ActiveQuant, the longer and more detailed the better, in publications (whether paper or electronic) that are clearly independent from the developers. If these sources are widely known and recognized, then few are needed. It seems possible that this level of information is not yet available for ActiveQuant. In that case, it might be best just to let this version of the article be deleted, and try again in a few weeks or months, when better sources become available. I will be happy to discuss what sources you find and generate, as they occur, and let you have my opinion as to how well they cover the notability problem. Tim Ross·^talk 14:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment. hi there, following a list of sources i found on the net.

ActiveQuant:

http://www.gojobs.com/seeker/jobdetail.asp?jobnum=4725486&jbid=1625 http://freshmeat.net/projects/activequant/?branch_id=52197&release_id=267351 http://www.softwareheadlines.com/modules/planet/view.article.php/243436 http://ojts.sourceforge.net/ http://www.ohloh.net/projects/8064/enlistments http://warrenng.blogspot.com/2007_08_01_archive.html http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=85659 http://www.linuxlinks.com/Java/Financial/ http://www.nabble.com/ccapi2-and-activeQuant-f27807.html

http://del.icio.us/search/?fr=del_icio_us&p=activequant&type=all http://del.icio.us/search/?fr=del_icio_us&p=ccapi2&type=all http://del.icio.us/search/?fr=del_icio_us&p=ccapi&type=all

CCAPI2 : http://www.x-trader.net/cms/articulos/software-y-tecnologia/jsystemtrader_4.html Presentation at Fosdem 2007 : http://archive.fosdem.org/2007/schedule/events/lt_ccapi2 http://www.opentick.com/index.php?app=content&event=platforms http://www.linux-beginnerforum.de/glossary/index.php

I don't agree that it doesn't help to name other projects that have similar coverage or weak references, as this just points out how problematic this delete discussion is. There is so much software out there that is named on wikipedia with less coverage and less significance that i really can't comprehend why exactly this article was marked for deletion. ActiveQuant is on the web, under the former name ccapi2, for more than four years, a time quite some people on the web (including wikipedia editors) spent in high school. Also keep in mind that there should be something like same rules for everyone and do not forget, you (wiki-patrons) attack us and all these small projects, not vice versa.

I also can't understand why user Ronnotel, a user with quite some knowledge in financial aspects is so dense to not see the relevance of activeQuant as the only professional open source trading framework worldwide on the net. I would appreciate some feedback from him on that - i.e. if he knows any other open source algorithm trading framework.

And to raise another point, if we speak about ronnotel's activities on volatility arbitrage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatility_arbitrage), an article that is listed on his page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronnotel) as "substantially revised", i clearly can see NOT A SINGLE REFERENCE, this article simply hangs completely in the air. Before arguing to delete articles, please first clean in front of your own door.

One of the main problems to achieve media coverage is the simple and mere fact, this topic is not mass relevant, the total amount of active practitioners of the art of computational finance is small compared to simple programmers worldwide.

Thanks for your offer for discussion.

(ustaudinger, 12/25/2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.98.196 (talk) 15:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ustaudinger, this process is not an attempt to be vindictive and there is nothing whatsoever against ActiveQuant. This AfD is simply following well-established WP policy regarding notability. So far, the only evidence provided are job ads, forum discussions, and press releases. These do not qualify as reliable sources and therefore ActiveQuant does not meet the threshold of notability. This treatment is identical to that given thousands of articles every month who similarly are found to be not notable. If ActiveQuant is as important as you claim, I have no doubt that it will one day be notable and I would be the first to support its inclusion. Until then, WP is not the place to seek a wider audience. Ronnotel (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, ustaudinger, but it seems clear that you are new to editing Wikipedia and are having some difficulty understanding how the process works. The people who run it, and who make the vast majority of the decisions, are not "wiki-patrons". They are standard people who are willing to volunteer their spare minutes in an effort to make the world a better place. I am one of them, and so are you. I have no special authority here, no more access or greater privileges than do you. Just like anyone, I have the ability to edit articles you write, and I have the ability to comment on articles proposed for deletion. In fact, I guess I can make such proposals, and so can you. You can go to articles I have initiated, make changes, and comment on any inadequacies you may find, whereupon I will probably do my best to figure out ways to make improvements. One of the ground rules, though, is that all articles must meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Neither you nor I can change that requirement (although we can certainly suggest changes if we wish).
I have gone through the "list of sources" you provided above, and have listed them, along with my thoughts on their applicability to the notability issue, on my talk page. I hope this is helpful. Tim Ross·^talk 13:59, 26 December 2007 (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.