Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simdesk

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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simdesk

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Simdesk is a real company, but this article is focuses solely on the speculation (original research) that it is the company that a series of message board posts were about. If the article is to remain, it should be about the company, and the Virtudyne thing should be at most a footnote. Coneslayer 19:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What if the speculation becomes more important than the company? - purposely unsigned

Who cares? Its not that big of a deal.

The article could be moved to Virtudyne, as it is more likely people look up the article for Virtudyne looking for the real company. Bernhard Bauer 19:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

We could also rename the article to something like "Virtudyne-Simdesk Theory". The fact is that nothing before this DailyWTF article justified Simdesk having its own article, but now it deserves mention on its story alone. I'm okay with this page being a description of Simdesk, but its story isn't a footnote, it should be the meat of the article. Klondike 20:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

See related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtudyne. Fagstein 22:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The article posted here is pure speculation of a company that could be Simdesk. The story itself has not been verified or even researched (to my knowledge). The wikipedia entry for simdesk should first contain information only about the company. Anything else should be addressed as footnotes, or like wise. Atmostphere 20:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Came here from TheDailyWTF (although I'm a regular Wikipedia editor in any case). While I believe that Virtudyne may indeed be SimDesk, I don't believe it has any place here. As mentioned above, it's pure speculation, and something tells me that the editors here won't want to get themselves involved in a libel lawsuit if they happen to be wrong. Delete. --Ciaran H 20:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Article seems to be a fairly good stub now, so changing to a keep. --Ciaran H 12:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete given SimDesk's botched deployment in Houston, an encyclopedic article about this company is probably possible. This, however, is not it. Delete as forumcruft and possible attack page. —ptk✰fgs 20:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless it's rewritten into something more than this spamstub. Gazpacho 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I've removed reference to Virtudyne unless someone can come up with a reliable source linking the two. Houston story makes them notable. Fagstein 21:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it is now. Simdesk is notable enough to have its own encyclopaedic article, but the Virtudyne story is not. Not even Initech has its own article! ||| antiuser (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. The recent spike of attention from TheDailyWTF aside, the company/software might end up being notable enough. The article needs to be improved beyond sub-stub status, though. --Piet Delport 23:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Notability might exist, but isn't established. TDWTF doesn't count as a source either (though it's a great site). --Chris (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: Simdesk has been in the news a decent amount over the past few years, and there are plenty of reputable sources to write a decent article - except one without any reference to The Daily WTF's near-fictional 'VirtuDyne' whatsoever. Unless the latter is confirmed to be connected with Simdesk through some other means - such as Simdesk suing for libel, or something like that. But otherwise, no VirtuDyne! --HiddenInPlainSight 09:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Simdesk is worth of mention for the controversy/scandal in Houston, regardless of whether the daily wtf had an article about it. Brianski 10:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Simdesk seems more than notable in its own right (though my prurient interest in The Daily WTF story is probably biasing me) Pattermeister 12:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: I vote for the keep as a renamed "Virtudyne-Simdesk Theory" entry option. Pauldean 14:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• delete keep: At this time, there is nothing of value in this article. From my limited understanding of Simdesk, however, there *could* be an acceptable article written. There are enough reliable sources that this to pass WP:CORP. I will keep checking to see if this article gets expanded and will change my vote to keep if it improves. Wrs1864 01:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This still isn't a great article, but it certainly qualifies as a stub Wrs1864 12:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong, full-throated, possibly indecent KEEP: Practically the only thing notable about Simdesk is its dot-com era swindling of Houston, but it is a pretty good case study. Maybe there should be an article about dot-com scams, which Simdesk/Virtudyne would nestle very cozily into. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.118.101 (talk • contribs)

• Keep: It's a stub, expand it, don't delete it. --Sindri 10:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep: The objectionable content that was there when I created this AfD has been replaced with acceptable stub-quality information. -- Coneslayer 16:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 00:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: None of the reasons cited for deletion apply at this time. The article definitely needs work, but the company is notable and seems reasonable to include in wikipedia. --jackohare 04:51, 24 October 2006 (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.