Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AutoNOC

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, Wikipedia is not where you go to promote yourself or your product. --Core desat 04:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AutoNOC

Non-notable software platform. A search for sources turns up the company's own pages and some reprinted press releases, but no substantial secondary coverage. There are claims to notability — "monitors 4% of all internet traffic", plus some firsts like "1st NMS to Handle Up To 100 Terabytes of Network Mapped Live Historical Data Per Grid Node" — but these are unsourced and so essentially unverifiable. Article created by a single-purpose account called "AutoNOC", prod removed without reason by an IP address in Georgia, home of AutoNOC LLC. Thomjakobsen 13:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All information posted on this page is accurate and verifiable. The page has been updated to include means for verification of the challenges issued by Mr. Thomjakobsen. AutoNOC LLC did edit this page to update it with more current information after the logon for the account we created for keeping the information accurate was deleted? We have no problem if this article is removed as Mr. Thomjakobsen has repeatedly request. However, Wikipedia needs to remove all other NMS's listed on Wikipedia at List_of_Network_Management_Systems. For some reason Mr. Thomjakobsen is singling out AutoNOC for deletion and is exempting these other packages. Very few of these manage as much traffic as AutoNOC does and some of these do not even have a single verifiable customer installation. Some of these pages that Wikipedia editors apparently have no problems with have little more than a paragraph listed.

I'm not singling out your article; it just happened to be in a backlog of articles that have been flagged for notability concerns since March of this year. I'd agree with you that many of the articles in the list you point out also qualify for deletion on the same grounds on which I've nominated this one: that there is insufficient secondary coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability. The fact that those articles haven't been listed for deletion yet doesn't mean that I'm holding a grudge against this particular article, just that I found this one first. I can understand if you're irked by smaller competitors still having articles, and I'd be happy to go through that list — I'm not "exempting" them, I just haven't had a chance to look at them yet. By the way, the stuff about "verifiability" refers to the fact that we need independent sources to back up the facts in articles. I'm not saying that the information is false, just that we can't rely on a company's own assertions about the popularity and unique achievements of their products, because they so often exaggerate that kind of data. Thomjakobsen 01:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we've raised this issue every time someone has flagged our article for the year or so it's been listed and people keep listing our article but none of the others. The other list actually appears to be growing, not shrinking and random clicks on them do not indicate anywhere near a similar level of scrutiny that this entry is receiving. We originally added this article to that list and filled out the page for it because people were researching lists of NMS on Wikipedia according to google logs and ours was not listed. After posting the page, people requested more details and notability information. We posted the most notable aspects, which we believe to be significant. And in this very long process, for some reason AutoNOC keeps getting singled out. I am fine with removing this page ... providing all of the others are also removed. Selective inclusion / editing is, however, a substantial problem for AutoNOC especially considering the quality of product and articles that are not receiving anywhere near the same level of scrutiny. We don't disagree with the process ... we do however feel it is highly biased against us in favor of open source software (a lot of which is crap that companies can't even get support for) and for other software for which we can't actually determine why it hasn't been deleted. Every time we come to our page someone has marked it up some other way procedurally and none of the other pages that are far worse have been touched. We like Wikipedia, we support the project, however, decisions should be made to either remove all discussion of these products from Wikipedia, or accept all of the legitimate ones with a clear baseline of what should be and shouldn't be included. The problem is the existing process reeks of subjectivity and bias. For some reason we are on the wrong side of this bias, and we are going to raise the issue until it is resolved. The entire list and relevant entries need to be removed, or AutoNOC, a company with one product that it has been selling and supporting it for a decade needs to be included.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 01:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as required by WP:N. —gorgan_almighty 11:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AutoNOC or Delete All on the NMS List. How can you have a page like this that purports to be a universal "list of network management systems" List of Network Management Systems and then selectively exclude packages that manage 3-4% of global internet traffic while keeping others that don't have one production customer deployment? I agree with and support anti-commercialization efforts within Wikipedia ... however, the only public "independent sources" listed by many of the sites on that page are paid advertisements and paid for software reviews bundled with advertising. So is then the requirement of notability to not be technical achievement, but rather, how many magazine advertisements you buy? Which is more notable? Purchasing magazine ads and editorial reviews in commercial publications, or being the first NMS to handle 1 million probes on a single server in 60 seconds while managing 3-4% of global Internet traffic? What type of notability is more important? Technical notability or purchases of commercial editorials? Half of the references listed by some of the applications selectively exempted from Wiki-scrutiny were simply bundled advertisement purchases from magazines and other websites. So, according to Wikipedia editors, we should go out and purchase a commercial review of our technology and then reference it on this page just to have the page included? No offense - but that is completely idiotic. We can probably do it however, ... but it's still completely idiotic. We don't actually want a lot of mainstream people to know about AutoNOC much at this stage because we don't want more customers and can't handle them from a high quality customer support perspective right now, but we do want AutoNOC included in any comprehensive NMS lists on the Internet. So, if you delete this page, we will simply go out and purchase one or many small "notable" magazine reviews, probably with 3.0 release next year, re-post this page and reference the review we purchased to meet Wikipedia's "notability" requirements. That is all that the people you have exempted from scrutiny have done, many of which don't even have production customers. The irony here is that your efforts to reduce commercialism in Wikipedia are actually increasing it.
Deletion Will Affect AutoNOC Wiki Project and Related Server/Hardware. At this stage, we are tired of arguing about this. If you keep the other entries on the NMS list while selectively deleting the AutoNOC page, the result is pretty simple for us. Upon selective deletion of this page while you retain the other NMS pages, we will terminate all related wiki projects. If there is no place for AutoNOC in the wiki world ... there is no place for wiki in the AutoNOC world. I'm tired of arguing about this. Hopefully, someday there will be a knowledge aggregator that comes along that has a place for AutoNOC. If it does, we will certainly be supporting THAT project, because our efforts to support the wiki standard to date have obviously been a waste of time and resources.

I'm not sure what you mean — that website isn't related to Wikipedia in any way, it just runs on the same underlying software. How does terminating a project on your own servers affect this site? Thomjakobsen 00:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have supported the wikipedia project in a number of ways over the years. From this point forward, we will be pretty clear. In this highly and obviously biased situation (from our perspective), if there is no room for AutoNOC in the wiki world, there is no room for wiki in the AutoNOC world. I believe in the theory of wikipedia ... but I think it needs to be replaced by something that has more sensible methods of handling these kinds of questions. You guys need to remove all those other NMS entries if you are excluding AutoNOC. It's that simple.

I'm still not sure what "no room for wiki in the AutoNOC world" means. If I get you right, if this article gets deleted, you'll shut down a project on your own servers that has no relation to this site? How is that of any consequence for this site? Could you be more specific? Thomjakobsen 00:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't be more specific other than to say that I believe in the long-term concept of an Internet knowledge aggregator and will do what I can to insure one emerges and becomes the leader that is free from bias of this type.

Sounds great, good luck with it. Thomjakobsen 00:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“Luck has a peculiar habit of favoring those who don't depend on it”.

Well, good luck with it anyway. Thomjakobsen 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ooh look at that," Mr Cesarz said, apparently referring to cockpit readings. "Pretty cool."

Comment. I believe the creators of this article are misunderstanding the concept of a wiki. Wikipedia uses the MediaWiki software. You may also be using the MediaWiki software, but the connection between your servers and the Wikipedia servers ends there. Deletion of an article on Wikipedia will not affect any MediaWiki software running on your servers at all. Neither should Wikipedia be biased in favour of your project simply because you use the same underlying software. Would you expect a news source to show you extra favour because you both use the Apache web server software?? To find out the minimum inclusion requirements needed for an article on Wikipedia, please read Wikipedia:Notability.—gorgan_almighty 12:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Confusion on Technologies - The Problem is WikiBias Against Middle-Tier Vendors. We have full understanding of how the technologies work. This issue is no where near as simple as your "notability policy redirect, lets delete it". The AutoNOC entry is notable on a great many extents and certainly meets notability concerns if any researcher had actually sat down to google AutoNOC and read it's history. The problem here is bias. You are exempting from scrutiny free software and software from large monopolies apparently weighing mass distribution on "free software sites" and paid editorial/advertisement bundles purchased by large monopolies ahead of true notability. There is an apparent attempt being made on Wikipedia to list all known NMS, however, at the same time as this list is being created, the editors are systematically excluding middle-tier vendors from this list. AutoNOC is more than notable enough to be included in any master NMS list anywhere on the Internet and for Wikipedia editors to single us out for deletion while keeping free software that is crap and large monopoly software that doesn't actually work is unacceptable to us. If you want to delete the article ... fair enough ... we believe this is a fundamentally biased decision, and as a result, we will terminate all past, current, and future involvement with the Wiki project to devout time, effort, and resources in order to find replacements for Wikipedia that are not so biased against middle-tier vendors as a direct consequence. It may be hard for a wiki-editor to understand this, however, from our shoes, this bias isn't a joke. It is real bias. It is material bias. The editors are clearly favoring both free software that is crap and software from large monopolies that doesn't work ... over middle-tier vendors that are successful for 10 years. The existing policy of presenting a "master NMS list" and then only allowing free software and software from large monopolies to be listed ... while excluding middle-tier vendors that have 10 year successful operating histories is biased and exclusionary. Period. It may be difficult for the Wiki-editors to see this, however it is still true. If your existing rules only allow free software and software from large monopolies to be listed in "all-encompassing product category lists" then there is something seriously wrong with that ... and from our perspective, given our 10 year operating history, this is highly biased. Get rid of the lists and we will shut up and go away. But if you keep the "master product list" and exclude AutoNOC from them, it's going to be an issue for us long-term and we will do what we can to either correct the bias against us or to replace the project that is acting in a biased manner. We certainly are going to discontinue all involvement with wikipedia and support alternatives, at a minimum. You guys need to delete that entire list ... or ... include AutoNOC, it really is that simple.. Why don't you establish "notability" by actually trying to download all the software on that list and seeing which ones you can actually get to work? I bet if you did that, you will delete 80% of that list and put AutoNOC at the top. I bet you can't even get 50% of the products on that list that you are defending running properly within 6 months! Seriously ... try it. You guys are excluding AutoNOC "because it isn't notable" while listing software on that NMS page that doesn't even work!

Weak Delete This might be a worthwhile article if it is extensively edited. Since no independent sources are listed in the article, and Google shows a haphazard array of information about a port scanning tool with the same name.I doubt it will meet WP:NOTE.jonathon 20:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per jonathon, AutoNOC personnel please be advised: I must agree with you that Wikipedia has some inherent bias in every article, an truly WP:NPOV encyclopedia would be blank. However, Wikipedia has guidelines and policies that make up the standards for inclusion, and also for things to specifically avoid.

First: Wikipedia:Notable. This policy (abbreviated WP:N, N, and when saying something fails it, nn) can be summed up in saying: If it isn't notable, it's not here. The main way to establish N is to cite reliable sources that can establish and verify information. Generally this means you need to find sources that have editorial review (magazine, established news source) that are independent of the subject. I'm very sorry, but AutoNOC so far cannot establish notability.

This leads to another important subject, Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. WP:COI (often called thus, or just COI) effectively says that those who have some relation to a subject (creator, competitor, staff of, etc) are generally under more scrutiny, in some cases even being told to stay away from certain articles. Just want you to be aware of this.

In any case, I see where you are coming from: You think you are seeing a bias pro F/OSS. Human nature, especially in projects like this where common sense, and for the most part the distinction between good and evil are to be removed, seems to try to go in the person who is editings' (or whatever) own favor. Many policy's here are in generally good intent- Don't take any of this as a shot against AutoNOC, it isn't. Things of all sort that generally try to stay out of the public eye will probably not get on Wikipedia, if they do, they'll probably encounter the same routine: nn, no sources, x ghits, possible coi, etc.

Understandable - But Why Maintain a Wiki NMS List if it Excludes Middle-Tier Vendors? The reason we posted this article in the first place was because of the master NMS list. AutoNOC notability is established enough to be included on a list that includes all major NMS systems. If the list of NMS is there, AutoNOC and related information as to what it is should be included. If there is no effort to list all NMS in Wikipedia (I could argue with you that there shouldn't be such a list in Wikipedia in the first place), then we have no problem with no entry. We are not trying to use Wiki as an advertising vehicle as I think that many think. We would be happy for all NMS entries to be deleted from Wikipedia. But it is a problem to select certain ones and then delete others, in which case we are the one being deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.23.224.223 (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please do not take any of the personally, either as a person, or as a business (I assume the person posting as AutoNOC/User:AutoNOC (talk · contribs) are some sort of representative or executive.)

To recap, weaker weak delete per nn, coi, and lack of sources. Perhaps I'm completely wrong in my above rant, I'd prefer that anyone wishing to discuss my view of WP philosophy do so on my talk page, not here (since this pages' scope is the AfD of AutoNOC.) Perhaps I'm off topic myself, but I do ramble like this sometimes.

Thanks, OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 00:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, i was looking for a reason to not delete the article. There is nothing in the article to substantiate its claims. jonathon 00:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific claim are you saying isn't unsubstantiated? Network traffic managed can easily be calculated by visiting public traffic ranking sites and summing these together with our customer list. Other claims can easily be substantiated by simply downloading the software. If someone says an engine has 500CC, do we have to reference a paid editorial that states it has 500CC? What specifically needs to be substantiated? I could agree with you that it is theoretically possible that we weren't the very FIRST to handle 1 million probes at 60 second intervals, however there is no software on the existing NMS list that meets that claim. For provability, the executable is easily available on our website and can be tested on any very large network. The claim of being first is based primarily on the fact that, even today, there is no known software package in this market that can handle 1 million probes in 60 seconds on a single server. The overwhelming number of other products in mainstream use use event based systems not true pro-active polling systems like AutoNOC. If substantiation of claims in the article is the key, there may be ways to improve this. It is somewhat difficult because of the nature of our business in terms of people making public claims, but there may be more ways to improve. The obvious one is, of course that the software can be downloaded and all claims immediately proven by anyone.

Article modified to change claim of 1st to "believed to be 1st" as per substantiation criticism. We are pretty certain we are the first, but it is impossible to know of all projects ever done int his space. We are very certain we are first within the list of NMS's on the list page (that the Wiki-editors want to delete us from). Article modified to reflect this uncertainty.

Global NMS List Generates / Resolves Notability Requirement I would also argue that the mere existence of a global NMS list that tries to list all substantial NMS available in and of itself meets the notability requirement for the AutoNOC page simply because AutoNOC exists. I understand many of these criticisms, however - none of the criticisms are addressing the key issue raised, that of Wikipedia attempting to maintain a globally all-inclusive NMS list and then selectively picking and eliminating individual middle-tier vendors from it. The only articles being allowed and/or listed are either free software or software from large monopolies. From a pure "representation of accurate reality" perspective, a global NMS list that excludes and removes middle-tier vendors while only including free software and software from large monopolies is actually skewing and materially misrepresenting the NMS space which has a great many very notable middle-tier vendors (not just AutoNOC). The fact that Wikipedia has a Global NMS List, by it's very definition, makes AutoNOC notable enough to be mentioned, merely because the list should present an accurate presentation of reality. This creates a conflict between notability policies/requirements and accuracy policy requirements. Which Wiki policy gets precedence? Policies related to notability (where notability is established weakly) or to accurate representations of reality? What is more important? An accurate list of NMS and information about them or the selective exclusion of middle-tier vendors where notability is weakly established?

"What specific claim is unsubstantiated?" Brief answer. Every phrase in that article is unsubstantiated.jonathon 12:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-brief answer: I'll use one specific example "It is estimated that the AutoNOC software is used to manage and monitor 3 to 4% of global Internet traffic[1]". Looking at [1], we find that it is on the website of the company that the article is about. Secondly, we see that it is merely a customer list. Thirdly,there is nothing on the page that even hints at something that could be construed to support the claim about the percentage of Internet traffic monitoring. Fourthly, there is no data from which one can even begin to determine how that claim was made, in either the article, or the page which it lists as the source of that statistic. For all I know, it could have been made up by one of the denizens of the Pub at L5P.jonathon 12:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned multiple times above, Internet traffic can be substantiated by summing up public traffic records they are all readily available. 3-4% is an estimate but it is a fairly accurate estimate. This has been reworded.

As far as the list of Global NMS goes, WP:ALLORNOTHING, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NOT#LINK and WP:WAX explain the problems with that hypothesis. jonathon 12:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all interesting policy statements, but I don't think any of them directly address what I am saying here. Mainly that the value of the NMS list is in that it accurately provides the list of all NMS and that is very true because a great number of people in this space want a list of all NMS to go look at and to see which one they like. The list itself is the value. By deleting middle-tier entries the NMS list no longer accurately reflects reality. None of these policy links addresses accuracy requirements.

TOP 40 Innovator / Georgia Technology Summit Award Added we had to hunt some time for this one but we were able to find it on a public source amazingly. This should help to falsify notability criticism. We would like to point out that very very few of the NMS listed on that page have been held to this standard and a great many of them that have not received this scrutiny even have any references.

Reworded Disputed Claims Traffic and 1st claims reworded to remove editor criticism.

AfD Tag Disappared At some point during this editing the AfD tag appeared to disappear (we didn't delete it, I'm not sure what happened to it), but I put it back mainly from an archived one, can someone please make sure it is correct? If it was meant to disappear by someone else can you please remove it (we don't want to be accused of deleting it).

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.