Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aqua Connect (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Wizardman 20:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Aqua Connect
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete Article created by a single issue editor who clearly is only here to advertise his or her companies product. Plain simple SPAM. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * NOTE: For those that can see deleted edits, please note that the spammer(s) is so desperate to get this article into Wikipedia that this spam article was deleted four times at Aqua Connect and twice at Aqua connect in the space of three days. And resurrected by not one, not two but three (Special:Contributions/Dani5703, Special:Contributions/JoMoMac, Special:Contributions/CMLeister) different sock puppet accounts. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * All articles are created by one editor, as long as its edited by more then one then it has some value. Look at the article's history and you will see some of my edits. While I don't know who the original author is (too lazy to look) I do think that the earlier version of the article was more on the sales side and less on the informational side. However that is why we all can edit articles to improve it. Don't delete an article because you don't like it, edit it until you do. Otherwise you are just being lazy.
 * Ooops forgot to sign it. CupOfJava (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your three day old account has NO edits to the article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Liar. Look at my IP address. I have edited not only that article but also the RDP article as well. I have been editing things on wikipedia from time to time as anonymous user since my edits were mainly minor such as adding references, adjusting a few sentences for clarity. For example I, (not someone else), added the DOJ reference to the article. I (not someone else) added the reference by brian madden on terminal server scalability. So do some simple checking you nit. If I say I have edited the article then look for my name. Don't see my name then look for my IP address. Once you have done that if you don't see me then ask me why you don't see edits by me. Don't just come half cocked as a jerk and assume automatically that I some shill. A LARGE percentage of Wikipedia articles are edited, updated and maintained by people like me who go onto an article and adjust a few things here and there. I would argue we out number you "regular" authors by at least 3 to 1. Wikipedia was designed for people like us to free our selves from selfish, self righteous and egotistical nits as you. I only created this account because I needed to go on the record as to why another person was arguing with my edits, otherwise I would have maintained just an account on wikibooks and done minor edits on wikipedia. CupOfJava (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but unless you tell us which IP address you previously edited under, or someone places a CheckUser request there is no way for us to know which IP address you are editing under. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Self-promotional spam. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While admittedly a lot lighter in content then VMWare's page how does Aqua Connect sound more like "self-promotional spam" versus other companies' wikipedia article such as VMWare, Citrix, Apple? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CupOfJava (talk • contribs) 06:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep — Weak - with some cleanup, I do believe this article could live. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] Delete, clearly self-promotional spam. Haakon (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep — A few issues that I want to clear up here. It's been pretty frustrating to have some users continuously call my account a "single issue user". Clearly, that is not true, as I have edited numerous articles. In my history, you will see that one of my first edits, "Skellie", was taken issue with by some editors. I quickly fixed that. "Aqua Connect" was my first attempt at creating an article from scratch. Admittedly, it needed some work and help since it was my first attempt at writing an article from creation, and I asked many many times for help in the Talk Page and history page for assistance to make the article Wiki-approved. Only a few editors really helped, and many of the ones who voted to delete it or took up an issue with it offered no advice and made no attempts to help rewrite it. I stumbled along the company in my research at my University for my dissertation. A lot of University and college students start their research at Wikipedia, and I thought it was odd that the company who created the first technology of its kind was not on here. With that said, I wrote the article. I have since moved on from the project that Aqua Connect was a part of, but I would love for some people to help add to, and work on the article. I vote "keep" for many reasons.  First, I am not a "single purpose account", ha ha, which should be clear now. Second, in my research I found that the company created the first ever Mac terminal server- that is pretty significant in the IT and tech world.  Third, I put a lot of effort into this article and would like to see it not go to waste.  Thanks all.  MacJarvis (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC) — CupOfJava (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As of yesterday you had made 156 edits (this includes your 11 deleted edits). Out of those 156, 146 relate directly to Aqua Connect. Only ten of your edits don't. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And while we are here would you mind explaining the sock puppet accounts (User:Dani5703 and User:JoMoMac) that appeared solely to restore your article after it was originally deleted four times for being spam? I'm assuming you know nothing about those accounts. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't even know what "sock puppet accounts" are. Regarding the many edits of "Aqua Connect", of course there are more edits to that article- I created it! And since editors had suggestions for fixing it, I had to continuously edit the page. That is what people here wanted me to do, and isn't that what is supposed to be done on Wikipedia?! Luckily, I did not have to edit my other contributions regarding bands and IT devices, because I was not the creator of those articles, and my submissions were not questioned. When I was asked to help fix the "Aqua Connect" article, I did so, which is what is supposed to be done. You can see that other people have edited this article as well, not just myself. This article is not even that important to me, it's more a matter of principle now. Do some research, and you will find that the company and their technology are notable. In my research, I found that it was the only company in the Mac virtualization/terminal server field missing from Wikipedia, even though they pioneered a lot of it. I don't understand why you are attacking me here. Loosen the strap on your tin-foil hat and actually help contribute to a notable and highly referenced article. MacJarvis (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from the previously mentioned sock puppet accounts, which other people have edited this article? I can see User:66.134.162.202 which is obviously yourself based on this edit. Then a variety of anonymous IP accounts like User:68.5.246.7 which make Aqua Connect related edits, disappear for months and then coming back again to make Aqua Connect related edits. And the rest of the edits are minor, either vandalising the article, nominating it for speedy deletion as spam, nominating for AFD, or minor tidying edits. Can you point to a single edit, aside from your own that has added anything to the article?
 * Also can you back up the claim that "they pioneered a lot of it" with a single reliable source? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, this keeps getting more and more entertaining. First of all, I am not the random IP addresses.  That IP address also edited articles on "Val Verde" and "Mach O"- I don't even know what those things are!  Val verde sounds like a salsa to me, and Mach O might be the car from Speed Racer. I edit what I know about... my research, my school, my professors, music.  I'm thinking you have not actually read the article at this point. Even for Wikipedia standards, the article has more references than normal! I'm in academia, references are important, I know that! Let's start with reference number 1, which if you follow the link you will find a quote from John Welch on Datamation that reads "However, for me, the biggest announcement was from a new company, Aqua Connect. They have the first iteration of a product that I have wanted on Mac OS X, literally, since Mac OS X came out, and that is a terminal server." . OK, now the case study and article on Microsoft's own website. Take a look at both, references number 12 and 13. If you actually read them, it talks about how the company licensed RDP to create the FIRST Mac terminal server  . What else do you need here? How is that not credible? It's from MICROSOFT! Notability and credibility, check! At this point, I'm pretty sure that your personal vendetta against this article is an indictment that you may work for a competing company to them. Either that or you didn't like their product or something. Microsoft is pretty credible in my book. MacJarvis (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You never edited the article as User:66.134.162.202? Really? Then what could this edit be about then? And why did you remove the unsigned tag from the edit here? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow you have to be kidding. I did not write anything about Val Verde.  Anyways, I'm tired of you.  AlistairMcMillan pretty much ruined Wikipedia for me.  Honestly, where do I bring up an issue with a Wiki editor?  I want to file a complaint, and I'm pretty sure this person has a vendetta against this company.  This editor should be brought up for suspension and his account should be investigated for corporate affiliation. Also, CupOfJoe is right, you know absolutely ZERO about technology, as proved by your comments. So why are you so interested in this article when you don't even understand it?!? OH YA... no response to the Microsoft articles huh? That's because you know you were wrong. You PROVED YOU DID NOT EVEN READ THE ARTICLE OR LOOK AT THE REFERENCES! MacJarvis (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please settle down. You're not helping your case by responding to very poignant questions in this manner. Be civil. Haakon (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * TANGENT I'd just like to say that accusing people of working for your competitors when they nominate your article for deletion is the Godwin's law of WP:AFD. Which company am I being accused of working for here? Is it Microsoft this week or is it Apple? I can never keep track. VMWare maybe? Citrix? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know who the heck that IP Address is or who is MacJarvis but it seems AlistairMcMillan could use a simple course in computers because a whois search on that IP tells me that its owned by Covad who is a DSL provide and like most DSL providers their IP addresses for their customers change from time to time. Why can't anyone on here do some fact finding before responding? Almost everyone on here is an idiot because common sense goes out the window. Bottom line is that Both you (AlistairMcMillan) and Haakon need to read the Wikipedia foundation's rules and site rules to see clearly that not only does this article fit with in the framework established but also both of you are violating Wikipedia's guidelines under AGF . If you are going to accuse someone of bad faith then PROVE it. Don't make suggestions with out evidence. 68.5.246.7 (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Pardon me I did not login in before signing this edit. CupOfJava (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be civil. AlistairMcMillan is asking very valid questions. Haakon (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, fair enough. I answered your questions. I provided proof that the company pioneered the technology. I referenced two articles from Microsoft themselves. Haakon, it's clear that AlistairMcMillan did not read the article. That person is asking for references and proof that is clearly in the article.  I don't know about the other edits, what do you want me to say?  I answered every question possible, provided references (that are still being ignored by Alistair), and proved my credibility.  False claims that can not be back up are not proof.  I don't understand why you don't see my valid points Haakon.  This is becoming a ganging up incident, and it's very disappointing. MacJarvis (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, the issue should be about the article. And I have addressed those points.  I don't work for the company, and I have no interest in their success whatsoever.  I just believe that the technology should be included in Wikipedia, and their efforts should not be ignored.  I apologize for getting upset, but I felt that my personal character was being attacked wrongfully. It is unfair to ignore the fact that Allistair has not responded to any of my proof, ignores it, and continues to attack my credibility. MacJarvis (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep Let me start by saying all this started when I decided to start adding more references to the article and then someone decides the whole article is worthless. I will point out below why this article is not only worth something but also follows Wikipedia's guidelines and rules. What I am upset about is that I have been doing minor edits both on Wikipedia and Wikibooks for sometime now and this is the first time that when I have added references to an article to make it not only more relevant but improve the quality that I have had my additions cause an article that I feel is important to be up for deletion because some one says it is not good enough WITH OUT giving any specific reasons. So now I am going to do what no one else on here has done and logically explain why this article meets the criteria to be a Wikipedia article but also why it is an important article.
 * Let us start with the Wikipedia guidelines. According to the Wikipedia guidelines on "Notability (organizations and companies)" Aqua Connect should be included for the reason that it is a Notable (over 900,000 articles on the internet (do a simple google search to find them)) and is a company. It is also notable since it is the only legal company that is allowed to both develop and distribute a Terminal Server for the Mac platform according to Apple's own employees in their Enterprise and Government Unit. In addition Aqua Connect's Terminal Server has been featured by Apple's Enterprise division both in article form and webcast form, (several articles and several webcasts), example, (but not exhaustive reference), is found here . In addition Aqua Connect is used in many schools via a program set up by another company known as "Ashbourne Technology Group", (read it an article and could not find the original article but here is a similar one ). Ashbourne is a Sun Microsystems partner and currently supplies over 10,000 schools with computer access via Windows and Mac Terminal Servers around the world. Last time I heard about these guys they had something like 2,000,000 individual users on their system. Mac Practice is one of only 3 medical software products available for the Mac platform and is by far the largest with something like 40% of the Mac medical market. They are listed as a partner of Aqua Connect and I know my doctor uses both products. In the U.S. Government area Aqua Connect is the only the Terminal Server product certified by NIST for use on the Mac platform. NIST is one of the largest standards used by the U.S. Government and it's contractors. Most agencies and contractors can ONLY use products on the NIST certification list. Aqua Connect is not only notable for those reasons but is one of the key reasons the U.S. D.O.J. has allowed Microsoft to continue with out further fines. According to a filing found on DOJ's website, Aqua Connect is only one of a handful of companies that has licensed Microsoft's patents and technologies showing the DOJ that Microsoft is trying to comply with the government's mandates. Aqua Connect also is one of the first Terminal Server companies to introduce 3D acceleration (OpenGL in this case) to Microsoft's RDP protocol , since then other vendors such as Wyse has followed suite but in the area of Adobe Flash acceleration and other vendors such as Sun Microsystem's Sun Ray will also feature some form of acceleration. Keep in mind I did all this research just for this stupid argument via Google and about 1.5 hours of my time. I have learned a lot more about them since then. My argument is simple, if you are in the Mac Enterprise or Government space then there is a 50/50 chance you have heard, played or tested with Aqua Connect's Terminal Server. If you are not then of course you would think it to be a waste of time. However keep in mind Aqua Connect's product offerings are geared SOLELY at the Mac OS X platform and mainly for the Enterprise and Government space so as a "general" article maybe Aqua Connect is not as relevant as something like a wind farm but it is like the relevance of Ashland Inc (makers of Valvoline) to someone in the auto business.

In closing I have spent most of my wikipedia editing life as a simple anonymous editor and seeing the absolute poor handling of this article by a specific person just in infuriates me to no end that is why I decided to just get off the side lines and make a stand. I offered to bring the discussion up on the side in the discussion section and I offered to talk about it and come to some terms but some people on here feel that if it doesn't fit their little world they should just delete it. I feel that all knowledge no matter how small should be in here in a manner that is both logical and intelligent so that it may be preserved and will boost wikipedia's use to the world and not to some segments of the world. You never know what is useful or not and unless you are an expert or heavily involved in a field or area then a subject or subject matter might seem trivial or pointless while it maybe a huge break through or important piece of information. CupOfJava (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC) — CupOfJava (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT - I would like to point out that this should be about the article and not about individual users. I personally am not a social person and thus I don't like people. So I don't like any of you but don't take it personally. I how ever believe we should stay on topic which is about an article's merit. Simply put this article should stay for the above reasons. It should also stay because it is making news every day as well, like here, and yes I do read his site and blogs often because I think he is spot on about 75% of the time which is a lot in my opinion on tech related news. CupOfJava (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep — I found this article from the RDP comparison page. It was very helpful.  I do think it could use a bit more detail, though.  It feels a little short.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfer0644 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Being "helpful" is not a keep reason. Haakon (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to say useful.
 * Even "useful" is not a reason; the question is whether or not the subject of the article fulfills the General notability guideline. Haakon (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A little summary
September 21, 2008


 * 23:18 Aqua Connect created by User:MacJarvis (first edit)

September 22, 2008


 * 00:41 Aqua Connect deleted by User:Steven Walling.
 * 01:19 Aqua "c"onnect created by User:MacJarvis (clone of deleted "Aqua Connect" article, note that Connect starts with a small C for this one)
 * 04:29 Aqua "c"onnect deleted by User:Kimchi.sg
 * 20:33 Aqua Connect re-created by User:Dani5703 (first of two total edits)
 * 21:05 Aqua Connect deleted by User:Stifle.
 * 23:28 Aqua Connect re-created by User:Dani5703 (second and last edit)
 * 23:38 Aqua Connect deleted by User:Kimchi.sg

September 23, 2008


 * 04:46 Aqua Connect re-created by User:JoMoMac (first of three total edits)
 * 05:51 Aqua Connect deleted by User:Kimchi.sg
 * 05:52 User:JoMoMac blocked indefinitely for re-creating a spam page
 * 07:13 Aqua Connect protected to prevent re-creation by User:Kimchi.sg until October 23

September 24, 2008


 * 16:25 Aqua "c"onnect article re-created by User:CMLeister (no other edits, and please note lower case C again)
 * 16:27 Aqua "c"onnect deleted by User:NawlinWiki

September 26, 2009


 * 16:39 Deletion review started by User:66.134.162.202 (obviously MacJarvis as he/she clearly states they wrote the deleted article)

October 2, 2008


 * 05:17 Aqua Connect restored by User:Chick Bowen

Quite insistent for an uninvolved party.

Please examine the articles talk page, the deleted articles talk page and the deletion review. It is plainly clear that the only people that care about this article are User:MacJarvis (who also edits as User:66.134.162.202) and User:CupOfJava (who also edits as User:68.5.246.7), both of whom are clearly single issue editors who have one goal here. I'm assuming that MacJarvis and CupOfJava are different people based on their IP addresses, but it is amusing who they both added similar huge comments to this discussion unlike everyone else and both added references to the article using the REF tag even though there is no References section to display them in a usable fashion.

And I wouldn't be pushing this anywhere near as much if they would just come out and admit they are involved with this software, instead of bullshitting us with their "I'm just an interested user" crap. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.