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. Consensus is that ANT (network) passes the notability guidelines. There is less discussion on ANT+ and I can't be sure on consensus for that article as some editors look not to be discussing both articles, so would say No Consensus for that article but discussion lean towards merging which any editor could boldly do. Davewild (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This page, along with it's child ANT+ do not appear to have any informative purpose, other than to advertise the ANT company's technology. Of note, the ANT company, nor their owner Dynastream, appear to be important enough to have their own pages. If either of these pages were to exist, this page might be worthy for a merge, with significant content cut out. Evidence points towards these pages being maintained by marketing consultants to promote these products.
This may even be a candidate for speedy deletion, however there might be some relevancy for the technology sector given the ubiquitous nature of some of their partners' products (eg Samsung Galaxy phones). I first heard of this technology when my Galaxy tried to update the ANT Radio software. The only information I could find was these wikipedia pages, the company's own pages, and discussions on forums defending the ANT software, comparing its importance to Bluetooth.[1] (I can't help but notice the defender is "OneCanuck", and this is a Canadian company, but this is mere speculation.)
Such claims of primacy with Bluetooth might be fit for forums, and probably fits in some wikia or other wiki dedicated to computer science.
What is not speculation is that the article's history[2], featuring heavy initial edits by a now-deleted User:Steven.keeping. Again, we can't be certain this is the same Stephen Keeping that is named as a reference for my ANT technology articles[3], or that co-founded Ecritech, who claims "Our strengths address the challenges of producing content for hi-tech product promotion" and goes on how their strengths as journalists can help tech companies get articles, like the opinion OpEd linked earlier in this paragraph which was to a journal that Keeping was employed by at one point in time (or at least worked under an email address to their domain).[4]
We can also take a look at this User Keeping's first edit: [1]. While the initial creation of the page and minor edits (two users, one of them a bot) might have been well intentioned, we see the marketing vocabulary arrive with this user Keeping.
All of this info (and I've only been searching for references for 2 hours) seem to point to a self-serving expansion of this page. I am hard pressed to see this as anything other than a page to promote the company's product, increase brand recognition.
But most pertinent of all, there is a severe lack of verifiable sources to support this page's content, and I am having a hard time thinking of a reason for its existence.
If this can be rewritten (and if someone takes that on before its deleted) consideration should be made for the only major child I could find, ANT+, which still deserves deletion, and at most, a section on the new & improved ANT (network.
For anyone with such re-writing gusto, I would ask you to consider this: why improve this page, instead of working to create an ANT (company) article (exact name of your choosing) that can cover the company's activities as a whole, with this network information as a small subsection, until such time that ANT technology becomes the household name that Bluetooth has become.WildElf (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KeepANT (network). Low power wireless protocol quite widely used in the wearable sports and health electronics area, with tens of millions of devices using it. Googling for "ANT radio protocol -colony -colonies -wikipedia -thisisant", i.e. ignoring the Dynastream company pages (and ant colonies) produces lots of results for me, from which there seem to be a plenty of articles either on it, or discussing it in depth (and which aren't adverts or written by Dynastream) to demonstrate its notability - e.g.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topics importence is on par with Bluetooth low energy, just the article is not very well written. ANT+ technology is featured in latest smartphones from Samsung and Sony. It is used in heart rate monitors and cycling power meters as only way of data transfer for years, long before BT LE appeared. --Papuass (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep / Merge. This is definitely not a candidate for speedy deletion as there is no consensus and this does not meet the criteria of being a promotion. I don't see where this is written without a neutral point of view and the content is indeed encyclopedic and notable. I do agree that this needs to be written and the two pages, ANT(network) and ANT+ should be merged as ANT+ is not different enough (and does not have enough content) to deserve a separate page. I agree with the examples Papuass gives above and offer recent news references which contributes to this topic's notability. I also offer the [What links here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/ANT_(network)] page which shows a number of other pages linking to ANT.
Speedy. The page is presently little more than product lists and links to one manufacturer's webpages, exactly as proscribed in WP:5P1. ANT is emerging in a similar way to Bluetooth, with one company (Dynastream Innovations) gate-keeping access to the technology details, much as Ericsson did with Bluetooth. It is not the widening adoption of ANT+ to "household name" that will make it fit for a Wikipedia entry or the reduction of marketing language, but the unrestricted availability of the underlying information Dynastream control; ANT+ deserves a Wikipedia entry and I'm sure it will have one when the copyright holders eventually permit it.Jskaife (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 14:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is certainly notable per all the references above. PianoDan (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable as per refs in article and turned up here. We prefer to fix, not delete articles so WP:COI is not usually a valid reason for deleting. ~Kvng (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2015 (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.
