Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AnthillPro

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 keep per WP:HEY. The discussion was far from unanimous, but just because it's not the new thing on the block, it is still notable. Userfication is not necessary because it's still a 'start'-level article and the work can be done more effectively outside of user space. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AnthillPro

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination for an IP editor. I make no recommendation on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original nomination, as per IP 12.167.152.34 in this edit, reads thus: "This is a brochure for a non-notable software platform; primary source is company page, no significant discussion on Google, etc." UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: Please note this article is in the process of being updated to present a factual account of this product. References, citations, and awards sections are being added. ElodieAndco (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AnthillPro is old and way obsolete, but it's one of several continuous integration servers (see also CruiseControl, Hudson/Jenkins) that has achieved sufficient external notability to pass AfD. Any over-promotion is cleanup, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anthillpro is not obsolete. Anthillpro it is not free or share ware. There are plenty of citations to be added here. This article is being updated. 10 February 2012 ElodieAndco ```` —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 04:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It isn't very clear what this software does from the page, but I gather it has something to do with the supervision of computer programmers. Trade awards from IT-related sources would not make such a niche product notable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ElodieAndco left this comment on my talk page, and apparently knows of multiple detailed web articles and a couple more books that could be used as references for the article. (The references don't look like they've been added to the page as of yet.) So maybe we could userfy it? Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 20:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not judge the notability of this product by the poor adherence to the Wikipedia standards of the (old) article, or by the speed with which I, a novice editor with a day job, am proceeding with its re-write and citations.

Admittedly, I have not moved quickly in updating the paragraph text of this article. I am new to the “wikipedia-way” and I have been busy doing research myself, into Continuous integration, Continuous delivery, ALM, and AnthillPro. --All of these Wikipedia articles sport large banners indicating that they need work, yet they represent a development that is gaining momentum rapidly in this troubled world economy.

I decided to take on the AnthillPro article first because it was clearly in the most trouble. To that end, I have added 13 citations, 4 of which are awards and 2 of which are press releases. I have added to the history and today updated the leadin. I have now the information that I need to re-write the body of the article and there are several other citations that I have yet to include. Meanwhile, my research has shown me many Wikipedia articles that have few if any citations, yet have no warning banners on them.

Many thanks to Chris the Paleontologist. For his help in answering questions, and his positive attitude. Right now I am wondering, what does Userfy mean? I will look it up tomorrow. ElodieAndco (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy means "moving the article from "article space" (the searchable body of encyclopedia articles) to a subpage of a user's user space (e.g. User:ElodieAndco/AnthillPro) so that it can be edited until it's ready for prime time. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^This. It's not a substitute for being an article, and it cannot remain there indefinitely. What it would do, though, is give you time to adequately source the article and document the notability of the subject without the threat of impending deletion. One you're done, you can ask the userfying admin to review it, or have other editors doublecheck. If there's consensus that you've shown notability, by all means move it back to AnthillPro - and make sure the closing admin knows that you did so. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy: I see no proper coverage to support the claims of notability. Sources are blogs, a book about the genre of software (used in a manner that I'm not sure whether the book's author is aware of this software at all) and a news site frequently seen here (at AfD) as a last resort for non-notable stuff. Given that this situation is observed after 20 days of AfD, I see no hope for better sourcing in the near future. Hope the contributors would take time to improve the genre articles before asking to move this back. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This this software automation tool is notable for a number of reasons. If I haven't expressed them yet, it is because I have been working on "proving" them.

It was the first or second such tool of its kind depending on which source you believe(proved and agreed upon) but more importantly, over the past ten years, it has consistently extended it's features and automation capabilities and its ability to integrate with virtually all the other point tools and third party tools in the software build, test, deploy, and release world (I thought I had this part proved).

UrbanCode is a very small company, and they have only has 400 customers, but look at who the customers are 25 are fortune 100 and the rest are extremely large.(I had to use press releases from UrbanCode for proof on this, but I could probably quote a couple of the awards that they have won for the same information. Meanwhile, the big companies quote their own press releases and publications on wikipedia.) The software is deployed all over the world. In 2012, AnthillPro is used by extremely large companies/enterprises to do continuous integration on thousands of builds each day and they deploy software to tens of thousand of servers every day.(this is the part that has been hard to get a printed citation on because these companies don't want to talk about it, and there aren't very many case studies being commissioned.)

I am adding book citations and new article sections now. It has been a long process to go through so many books. I really had not imagined that I would need to create another 20 or so book citations, to make the "noteability" point. AnthillPro is acknowledged in the software development particularly Agile development as a shining example of CI and what CI can grow up to become.

There are plenty of citations out there for me to gather, but there are already plenty of citations in this article. It seems to me that this process is not objective. Do I need to add quotes by the book citations? I think I just need enough time to work my way though the rewrite

As for the citations that I have provided. The web based citations on this article are in keeping with citations on software articles in general. I selected this mix (mol), 4 books, 5 web articles, 2 white papers and 1 press release from UrbanCode (web), 4 product reviews(web) and 4 awards, -- based on simular articles which appear to be well written, and cited, and have no warning banners, or threats of deletion at their top. Perhaps, this is only because the razors have not seen them yet? There are several more books waiting for me to create the citations.

And by the way Czarkoff, which "news site frequently seen here (at AfD) as a last resort for non-notable stuff." are you talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElodieAndco (talk • contribs) 02:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly got SDTimes for a less obscure news site. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources added during the course of the AfD. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or userfy. SD Times sourcing looks good, some offline coverage in books as well (checking some on Google Books shows that these aren't incidental mentions, either). Also, in this edit to my talk page, ElodieAndco said that eight additional in-depth articles are available from Gartner, which should be a reliable source. Although ElodieAndco admittedly isn't the fastest to update articles, deletion would be premature, I think. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 21:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. Nearly all the citations are just descriptions of the product or new features added; from press releases and so forth. No actual demonstration of notability, just verification. The Gartner Award might have been significant, but I checked the page and there's dozens of "Cool Vendor" winners, possibly hundreds (most of whom don't have articles here either). And strictly speaking, the company won the award, not Anthill. --DeLarge (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2012 (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.