Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GT.M

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GT.M[edit]

GT.M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to verify notability in any reliable sources. -- samj inout 10:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unreferenced article about some kind of software: a high-performance schemaless database engine, optimized for transaction processing. And it's "high performance" and "optimized" too! - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Did anyone search the news archive for Graystone Technology? Many hits in mainstream newspapers, and not press releases. Seems a notable company. I don't know if the database product itself is notable or not: pretty old product, there were no reviews on the net in 1986, but we should probably have an article on the company, and their database engine can be a part of it; see product history. Based on the longevity of the software, that probably makes it notable too. Pcap ping 22:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The product still gets mentioned in 3 books as of 2005-2006 (no full text, so I can't judge coverage). Software in use and written about for 30 years seems notable enough to me. It has only been open sourced recently. So the prudent here is to keep the article and just remove the spammy language. Secondary sources clearly exist, although unless someone make a trip to the library, it's hard to tell how much secondary coverage there is. Pcap ping 23:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also listed amongst the healtcare (solution) partners of Red Hat: [1] [2]. Pcap ping 23:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong reason. If American Banker is to be believed, this is like trying to delete the Microsoft Windows of the banking industry because Fidelity Information Services is supposedly the number one company in the world in banking software solutions, and GT.M is now maintained by them, and used as backend for their banking app. I've added other uses, including being the backend of VA's open source WorldVistA; see [3]. The latter could have been easily found by just checking "what links here" WP:BEFORE nominating this for deletion. Pcap ping 01:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the software were so verifiably notable then one would think it would be easy to find references on the Internet, no? I'm not too fussed either way but if there are dead tree references then they're no good if they're not actually referenced. -- samj inout 04:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verfiability of the stuff I wrote above is not in question; I had added references "from the Internet". But don't expect a PC World review of this product because they don't cater to that market. Go check out the books found on gbooks from a library if you want to gauge dead tree coverage. Pcap ping 10:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to see Web 2.0 kind of coverage, here is 33 pages of GTM for the Python programmer. M/Gateway isn't related to FIS, so it's independent coverage. Pcap ping 10:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This product is alive and well - I know because I manage it and we have an active team of developers who put out major releases regularly. http://fis-gtm.com redirects you to the home page. http://sourceforge.net/projects/fis-gtm gets you to the project page at Source Forge where you can download it under the AGPL v3 license and where you can see that it has a multi-year history of active releases and has been downloaded thousands of times. Notable uses of GT.M include a couple of the largest real-time core processing systems live anywhere in the world running the FIS Profile application. As the technology platform for FIS Profile, GT.M is the legal system of records for tens of millions - perhaps over one hundred million - bank accounts around the world. It is the platform for FOSS deployments of VistA, the health care information system developed by the US Department of Veterans Affairs and increasingly used outside the US Federal Government system. There are deployments of VistA on GT.M on Linux live at hospitals and clinics in the US and Mexico, and the Kingdom of Jordan is deploying electronic health records for the entire country using VistA on GT.M on Linux. There are production sites running GT.M in mission critical applications with aggregate database sizes in the Terabytes. Uses of GT.M are a matter of public record. User:bhaskar 02:51 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks for declaring your conflict. I wasn't aware that being "alive and well" was a criteria for inclusion - I'm "alive and well" and you don't see an article about me in Wikipedia now, do you (even if one is possibly justified)? -- samj inout 04:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stop bludgeoning every keep. "Alive and well" is the least argument raised here. Pcap ping 10:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sure, notability is not temporary. -- samj inout 18:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess the Gartner MQ would qualify as an independent award of sorts so this is perhaps the strongest argument yet. I'm unconvinced the size/shape/quantity/etc. of users is relevant. -- samj inout 18:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. MUMPS has been around for what, 30 years? And this is one of the main implementations of it. You delete this, you have pretty much wipe out all of the MUMPS part of wikipedia if you follow the same deletionist logic. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: More like 40 years. MUMPS, SQL, UNIX, and C all have origins circa 1970. Evidently an extraordinarily creative time for software. Bhaskar (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the news sources found. Dream Focus 20:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep due to massive noteability and importance. Article has been substantially improved since the nom. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not see substantial improvement since the nomination. The references I see are trivial, PR, or directories. This meets my personal deletion criteria that articles must be written to reliable sources. I will AGF that the rollouts of this software in multiple large organizations meets some undefined state of notability and the rest of the article (such as example functionality) can be verified.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GT.M&oldid=1069224992"