Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ANTs Data Server
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 No Consensus/Keep. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Page is currently just a short ad; suggesting it be removed until someone takes the time to write a NPOV article about the subject TroelsArvin 07:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete has been edited but seems no better, still has advert style claims. (Oh and the VfD tag was removed after the last edit). Alf 11:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is just an advertisement. Dottore So 14:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks fine now Lemiak 00:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep revised npov Chachka 19:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Robosmobos 14:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or rewrite in its entirety. In addition to the article(s) themselves being almost entirely devoid of factual content, there is a disturbing amount of funny business going on here, including removal of a votes for deletion template, apparent sockpuppets, and false claims being posted to Comparison of relational database management systems. Not cool. --Craig Stuntz 17:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been improved slightly since my request for removal. However, a sentence like "uses 7 patented algorithms in the only parallel trasaction processing enginge that does not use locks at any database level" is still pure maketing rubbish to me. If the article starts to discuss lock-free techniques, it should cover the negative effects it has, or else explain how complete lock avoidance goes along with SQL's highest isolation levels. Also: The claim for "performance 15 times greater than conventional database systems" is 'documented' by a link to a sales article. C'mon... TroelsArvin 09:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - and, by the way - have a look at the Keep-voters. Strange how they have all very recently been created... TroelsArvin 09:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- True, and looking at the contributions from those users also shows additional articles with NPOV / factual issues. --Craig Stuntz 14:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Tarvin why don't you revise it? Manifoldtop 01:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I might revise it at some point, although I find other topics more interesting. Until someone takes the time to write a proper article, the article should be deleted, in order to support Wikipedias reputation. TroelsArvin 07:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleanup well this is getting interesting, has anyone actually tried to test it? looks like you can download it here *ADS btw, Troels, you have a really nice sql page there Sqlboy 18:29, 23 August 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.