Talk:Simdesk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-10-13. The result of the discussion was keep.

Original research?

[edit] article deletion

Folks, if you want to keep this article, you will need to start writing up stuff and citing references. From my understanding of Simdesk, there *could* be an article written that passes WP:CORP. The article needs to keep a Neutral Point of View, but if the primary things that simcorp is known for are negative, then that's fine. There is no reason why this article should be a fluff piece. Wrs1864 01:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As simdesk is mentioned in USA TODAY, in an article that does seem optimistic on Simdesk's possibilities, but is not a direct copy of a press release (I don't suppose that USA TODAY does journalism like that), it already passes the WP:CORP criteria for a product or company. Furthermore, the event that a city like Houston does the risky step of moving from MS Office to the unkown simdesk suite is rather notable. Therefore, this article should _not_ be deleted! Otherwise, where would people from Houston look to see what this simdesk stuff is all about? I think that the 'deletion' tag should be replaced by a 'stub' tag. Anyone who agrees/disagrees? -- Mipmip 06:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humorous Piece of .COM Lore

From what I know of this office suite, there has been a lot of talk in tech-oriented blogs about the rise and fall of Simcorp. Although I don't feel I am an experienced enough tech author to draft the final version of an article on the Simdesk suite, I think anyone wanting to do so should read the following four-part article series I found on The Daily WTF:

All jokes aside, I ran a Google search it does seem that the project was unable to meet its objectives and that the company has operated in the red for most of its history. --Rcgy 17:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Until a better article comes along, I think those links are worth putting in the main page. Ariel. 19:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Please look at the page history and AfD. This page started with the Daily WTF story, but that material is not suitable unless someone provides verifiable evidence that Simudesk == Virtudyne. Until then, it is original research. -- Coneslayer 19:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Would it not be sufficient to find statements from beyond WP that assert Virtudyne is Simdesk, or perhaps a reputable news source that reports the rumour? Or would everything beyond those assertions have to go in Virtudyne if there isn't conclusive proof? Somegeek 19:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't speak with any authority, but my opinion is that WP:V#Sources_of_dubious_reliability and WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 are a pretty high bar, especially given the negative tone of the Daily WTF articles. For me, coverage on a reputable news source would probably merit inclusion here, but most anything short of that would not. Looking at the AfD discussion may give you clues as to where other people stand on the topic. -- Coneslayer 20:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Coneslayer might be right, it might not be worth the trouble to gather the WP:CORP-compatible data when someone could just write an article on the Virtudyne goof and leave it at "it seems that the fictitious Virtudyne is an allusion to a real company some consider to be 1999 start-up Simcorp, whose track record they claim loosely matches that of Virtudyne"; and let someone else write about Simcorp in they feel so strongly about it. You're right, Coneslayer, if one is not careful the fluff can get out of hand. --Rcgy 19:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

(Note: Rcgy is responding to my comment of 19:09, 17 October 2006. -- Coneslayer 20:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC))
Sounds like a good idea, the virtudyne wikipedia article could be connected with dotcom bubble, etc. Then either link to simdesk or forward simcorp to simdesk as two split articles for this product and its produces won't help creating a substantial article for any of them -- Mipmip 06:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The WTF article referenced throughout this discussion is funny but not particularly relevant to the real company Simdesk. It clearly falls under Original Research. Those who insist on continuing to try to post it to this entry are ignoring all of the guidelines for everyone's benefit (seeWP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 and WP:V#Sources_of_dubious_reliability). Please read and understand these guidelines prior to posting further. Wikipedia is not the place to forward whatever objectives this group has in mind. UKMan 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virtudyne

As suggested by Rcgy I made a first go at a virtudyne article to relate to this simdesk article, without putting unverifiable stuff into the simdesk article. Request for the ones reading this: Please help me out with it, as it's the first article I started on wikipedia ever, and I might miss out on some of the standard stuff -- Mipmip 06:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Virtudyne doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. I'm nominating it for deletion. Fagstein 22:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yo, agree. Alternatively, I suggest to just keep the account of it in this simdesk talk page, is that an idea? Since it should in no way on the actual simdesk page. I also wonder since apparently simdesk did get some new costumers in 2004 even (indiana and some science park in vietnam), so the point that it sold only one contract doesn't really seem to hold. -- Mipmip 06:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The guys that keep pushing this agenda are cute. They ought to start writing fiction. AND get an editor instead of continuing to push their opinions here. Looks like this company really upset some ex-employees, but given the way these ex's are acting, it also looks like they were well-advised to get rid of them. From what I can tell it was a big idea with a big effort that just didn't make it. Wow! UKMan (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)