Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YellowAnt (software)


 * 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. Can be userfied on request (though not by me).  Sandstein  06:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

YellowAnt (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. No reputable sources discuss the topic and only briefly mention it as receiving start-up funding. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 04:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:PRODUCT, and per policy does not inherit the notability of it's creating company. Lack of sourcing is also an issue.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The article was created today. Brand new. Is it not worth leaving it for several weeks to see how it develops. scope_creep (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's borderline promotional and reliable sources aren't there. So, no, this one is not worth "waiting" on. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 05:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Userfy - does not meet notability standards, as yet. but I note that the creator says it is "software, which is the only workflow automation tool that utilizes machine learning and Natural Language processing to create cross-application, cross-function automations." If this claim can be stood up in RS we have the making of notability. I don't like deleting potentially notable articles a few days after creation and moving to user space (suppressing the redirect, of course) will allow the creator a chance to develop it. Just Chilling (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Curious, did you even look to see the potential sources yourself? — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 10:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and Userfy It is a brand new article, and we are not deleting, that day after it was created, when it is still under construction. scope_creep (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Under construction doesn't matter if it will fail WP:PRODUCT each and every time. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 10:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is the perview of the creating editor to create an in-depth article that can fulfill Wikipedia's criteria before they official create it. It is not our job as editors to refrain from criticizing an article because it was recently created. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment @Nihlus Kryik, You are trying to predict the future, why would you do that? In a years time, the product could be used by 10million people. You can't predict the future, so your statement: it will fail WP:PRODUCT each and every time. is baseless. All these startups bring new thinking and new technologies and WP needs them to stay salient in the tech sector article space. scope_creep (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In a years time, if there are 10 million users, then the article can be created. Now? No. You are the one trying to predict the future by preparing for any alternative. It will sit in userspace as a stale draft. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 20:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedias do not speculate on future events, articles are written as if they have happened. See WP:CRYSTAL.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * True, although that doesn't stop many editors predicting the future by ignoring WP:CRYSTAL and has become the de rigueur method of reporting supposed future events, which may or may not happen, which is besides the point for this. Keep for the moment. Deleting an article which is similar to 10's of 100s of articles of the same type on WP is not the way forward, particularly when it is brand new. scope_creep (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Entirely promotional WP:SPIP and devoid of any indications of notability, fails WP:NCORP. Definitely WP:TOOSOON. Could have been speedily deleted. -- HighKing ++ 15:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it could not have been speedied - software is excluded from WP:A7. Just Chilling (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 05:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: A WP:SPA article on a software start-up, describing their package's features and payment options. The provided references are poor (the two sentences in VCCircle being the best) and my searches are not finding better. The choices of technology or any potential for future sales are propositional and do not demonstrate achieved notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH if considered as a company (why does it link in the article to Atlassian?) and WP:NSOFT if considered as their product. AllyD (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What did the Pink Panther say when he stepped on an ant? Dead ant, dead ant, dead ant dead ant dead ant.  Delete.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2017 (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.