Wiki143:Articles for deletion/SGI Virtu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 merge to List of SGI products. MBisanz talk 14:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

SGI Virtu

Template:La (delete) – (View log)

article serves only to promote a non-notable product and serve as a product guide for same. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources for verifiability with the "sources" in the article being press releases and/or primary source. I previously tagged for speedy as spam but, as it has been pointed out I'm not an expert and have not contributed significantly to similar articles in the past. I'm nominating in order to althose with said knowledge to debate the merits of the article and it's subject in full accordance with the policies and guidelines of notability, verifiability, and WP:NOT all of which I feel this fails. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete, does not assert notability - no little mention of this product line in the parent article. This could be incorporated into it but definately doesn't deserve it's own article. Booglamay (talk) - 15:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for the article

On the Procedure

The article was first proposed for a speedy deletion. It as been move to article for deletion.

  • No tentative has been made to improve the article
  • No proposal has been made to move copy or merge the article
  • The notability template has not been used on the page, thought notability of described subject has been contexted in the discussion page
  • Upon request for speedy deletion, no description has been added to the description page to explain the request
  • Article has been deemed a blatant advertising even thought:
    • it does not solicit for a business, product or service
    • it does not nor does it use sales-oriented language
On the merits

SGI as a compagny has been the major actor on Computer Graphics hardware in the past 30 years, having nearly invented the concept of graphic workstation.

Having encountered difficulties in the later 90s and in the first half of this decade SGI lost its position as a leader in the field of graphic workstations. Despite that fact, products by SGI during that period have their wikipedia articles, which are not contested ( SGI Fuel, SGI Tezro ).

At the end of 2007, SGI redeployed its visualization stategy. Implementing that new strategy, they release a new product line SGI Virtu during first half of 2005. Such a release represent the most important strategy change in SGI in the past 15 years, as it represent a change in architecture and a change in operating system strategy. This happens when all workstation manufacturers exits the RISC-UNIX workstation market ( HP-UX, IBM, Sun ).

For these reasons, I think the SGI Virtu line of product does not deserves any less an article that SGI Fuel, SGI Tezro, but also Dell Precision, IBM IntelliStation.

Of course the article is only a stub, and few of the points mentionned above are yet present in the article, nor sourced. When creating the article I only planned to invest at first a small time to it, even thought I ended up devoting far mor time to keep the article alive than both what I intended and what would have been needed to improve the article.

The article in its present form is only factual, does not try to promote any product, service or compagny. It mention the existence of a product line, and a few very basic technical aspects. When creating the article I tried to source the information, and keep meaningfulllinks with other wikipedia articles.

--Dwarfpower (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

On Notability

criteria from Wikipedia:Notability

  • 'Significant coverage'
    • [1] coverage by HPCwire and independant news coverage for [[High-performance computing|HPC]
    • [2] coverage by InsideHPC
    • [3] (fr) coverage by toolinux
    • [4] (fr) covergabe by cao.fr a french speeking portal of cad/cam

These are significant coverages by wikipedia standards as defined in Wikipedia:Notability

  • 'Reliable'

These sources are all independant secondary sources. They are long lasting publication in various languages.

  • 'sources'

As advised these are secondary sources.

  • 'Independent of the subject'

All these sources are independant of Silicon Graphics, either as corporation or in regards to their business source fo revenue

Additional information. No notability tag was added to the article to give the community the opportunity to establish notability of the subject. This article was written 13 minutes priori to the request for deletion !

merge with [Silicon Graphics]

Silicon graphic article organisation already is based on the existance of individuals article for its different product lines. That has been the case for two years and a half without any problem to my knowledge. merging information regarding this particular product line with the Silicon Graphics article would unbalance the article and compromise current quality of existing articles. --Dwarfpower (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete I am not sure if using more words makes your opinion stronger, I just know the product isn't notable, which is the policy here. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Pharmboy has it about right... There's little information in the article, and nothing to indicate its notability at all. I suggest that if it's mentioned anywhere it be in the parent article for now, until multiple non-trivial references are available. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we delete also ?

Just browse Category:Products by company and take a pick.

None of the people i'v seen requesting the deletion of the article sofar are familiar with Computer graphics and computer hardware, at least none made any contribution in the field in their last 500 contribution. I don't try to diminish anyone's merit, but of course most of you haven't heard about it, it's not your field. I think most of you haven't heard of Étienne de La Boétie either, and that dioes not dimishes his merits or yours. This whole thing started on accusation of beeing blatantly advertising a product, now I don't even here about it anymore... --Dwarfpower (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You may not want to "diminish anyone's merit", but you certainly will insult peoples' knowledge and contributions to Wikipedia - regardless of the subject content. Booglamay (talk) - 22:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- intgr [talk] 12:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing to this guideline. I did not know it. I will then try to explain how the above articles give a precedent to keep SGI Virtu articles in accordance with the guideline.
It is common and accepted practice in wikipedia to create articles describing products or product lines of notable manufacturers, as the above exemples show. Notability of a product cannot bejudged independantly of the notability of itsmanufacturer. At the same time, in a manufacturer coverage, consistency between articles must be kept to maintain the overall architecture of articles homogeneity. Giving Virtu a different treatment compared to the other manufacturer's products would lead either to the absence of coverage of this product line, or to the general sgi articles <ith little details on legacy product ( but pointing to dedicated articles ) and to a comparably important amount of information on the new product line, with no external articles. I hope ou all will find this explanation make the previous list of precedent fall in line with accepted policy, as described in the guideline [WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]]. --Dwarfpower (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

survey continued

  • Merge & redirect to an article List of SGI products 70.55.203.112 (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete — per nom. (If I'm putting this in the right place due to the user's excessive ranting. MuZemike (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Dwarfpower, there is much to be said for brevity. Oy. X MarX the Spot (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Wait a second! This article was created on the same day as it was nominated for deletion. Is it not generally accepted practice to give an article some time before to develop before deciding on its suitability for inclusion unless it obviously violates policy? I am more knowledgeable with Silicon Graphics hardware and I will conduct a search for reliable sources that can determine notability. From memory, there were notable sources from reputable publications at the time of this product line's announcement. Rilak (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
    • REPLY It doesn't matter whether an article is 1 second or 1 year old: This isn't about a SPEEDY DELETE, where the criteria is to make a claim of notability, it is about notability, period, claim or no claim. The AFD assumes that editors commenting here have done at least a little research into seeing if the product is notable or not. You are more than welcome to put up some sources here that would demonstrate notability. AFDs generally last a week anyway. That an article is "new" is not a valid reason to keep. PHARMBOY (TALK) 14:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, I know, but how can you possibly access an article for notability when it isn't finished? Rilak (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
        • The standard for notability applies to the SUBJECT MATTER, not the CONTENT. Actually, all you have to do is READ the actual guideline here to understand. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
          • You are obviously misinterpreting my comment. In many cases, the subject matter has been proved notable after sources were added to an article. An article which lacks sources to demonstrate notability is considered to be incomplete, as an article requires such sources to be considered to be something higher than something such as a stub-class or a start-class article. By the way, don't use all caps. Rilak (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
            • I get your comment completely. After trying to establish notability, I !voted to delete as it became obvious that there aren't really any 3rd party sources that would establish notability at this time. And please, for god sakes, don't tell me how to use caps or not. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (or add to List of SGI products). I see nothing notable about this. It is a product doing a job, just like all the different brands of hammers. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
    • While that might be accurate for Virtu VS, which are rebranded BOXX workstations, I think that the Virtu VN uses specialized software proprietary to Silicon Graphics to perform its job. Its more than just another "brand of hammer", but that doesn't mean it deserves it own article though, as I have said before. Rilak (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't consider four socket and height socket configurations another hammer either. granted dual socket xeon configurations are rather common now in the workstation marketplace (i'd go as far as to say that anythings less than that cannot qualify as a workstation ), but the amd based configurations are top of the line articles, all constructors taken into account. SGI sub contracting the construction does not diminish the product line merits . --Dwarfpower (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep major product lines of a company like DGI are notable. This isn't an individual product, but an article for the group of products. Seems to me there is slightly more significant creativity and individual differences in these products than in simple tools. DGG (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge - Web searches with Google and Yahoo return only one reliable secondary source, which has already been mentioned (the HPCwire article). Searches at more than twelve reputable computing related news sources that are expected to cover this sort of product have resulted in no results or only trivial mentions (a republished Silicon Graphics press release about their financial achievements for the fourth quarter, which mentions the Virtu in passing). Some of the sources include Digital Content Producer.com, Cnet, Hoise, CGW, The Computer Business Review, Computer Woche and all of IDG's sites. Searches at Bnet and a couple of other article search engines also return nothing. Searches at analyst sites mostly returned nothing or trivial mentions (the republished Silicon Graphics press release mentioned previously) and only one article: Jie Wu, "Looking for Lost Love, SGI Rolls Out a New Visualization Product", Apr 2008, Doc # lcUS21183008, but I unfortunately cannot remember which of the analyst sites I found it. The article requires registration to view, and due to the fact that these sites often cover nearly everything, it cannot offer enough weight anyway to support notability. The sources which I mentioned I had remembered seeing could not be located, and should be disregarded. A reasonably detailed search was conducted, using multiple methods, keywords and good-old fashioned manual browsing. All sites searched were ensured that they archived their articles and that they covered similar content. As a result of insufficient sources being located, I recommend that the content in the article in question be merged, and the article in question be depreciated into a redirect as what few sources that are available suggests that the subject is important and notable in the context of Silicon Graphics. It is worthy of note that Silicon Graphics themselves can only locate on article about the Virtu that is independent of themselves (see: [5]), the previously mentioned HPCwire article, which is further reinforces the position that this subject is not notable enough for its own article. Rilak (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
    • HPCWire is the only lengthy article on teh product line. However, every single CAD, CG HPC magazine and web site reported it, even if they di dnot cover it in length. Had the solution not been notable, they wouldn't have covered it. Lenovo thinkstation for instance didn't have that much coverage. and for a product that does not target niches. --Dwarfpower (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Here is another short source: [6]. Interestingly, a five-second Google search uncovers around 75 mentions of Lenovo workstations in the past month. I hardly got anything for the Virtu. Rilak (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Oops my mistake there. I think I hadn't cleared my search option when i did the search, I almost had hits at the time I wrote this. --Dwarfpower (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: not a great article at present, but on the face of it, a significant product line from a significant computer vendor. Certainly no less notable than several other computer product lines I can think of that have their own article. Letdorf (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete. Sorry, Dwarfpower, but WP:TLDR. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Wiki143:Articles_for_deletion/SGI_Virtu&oldid=7344989"