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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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, 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 page, 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.

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.) 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]

"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 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]

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.