Talk:SGI Virtu

Do not delete
SGI has been involved from the beginning of the graphic workstation industry in the creation of such system. It nearly invented the concept, and has been a major player of the field until the turn of the mullenium. For the past ten years or so, while still presetn on that market, it failed to keep up with the industry. With this new product line SGI changed its strategy and re introduced an offer to a market that distinguishes itself more by product end of life ( Hewlett Packard, IBM, Sun stopped their RISC workstation product line IBM exist the field altogether ). The availability of a new product line from the major player of the fiels from the past three decades is of importance to the graphic workstation market.

nearly all past graphic workstation systems by SGI has its wikipedia article, without any problem so far ( see octane, indigo, O2 ... etc ). Why would Virtu be any different ? Of course as stated this is a stub. It has to be completed, but what is writtent is a mere description of a product line, it is as neutral as can be, and should only be judge for what it is, a quick start for an article that has to be enriched. --Dwarfpower (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the problems is that wikipedia is not a product guide and isn't for "a mere description of a product line", etc. Not to mention for total lack of significant coverage of this particular product in reliable 3rd party sources to show that it is actually notable enough for a stand alone article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * * You never contributed to any compter related or technology related article, You never demomnstrated to the wikipedia community that you are authoritative to juge the notoriety of a product line.
 * * As I stated and as the article is tagged, this is a newly created article. of course is does not yet elaborate either in terms of available capabilities, or on industry acceptance of the product.
 * * I tried to add cross links and linlks to external sources to justify the interest in the product. I couldn't do more for now given the amount of time I can devote to the task
 * * If you think SGI is not notable enough, please fill free to avoid reading articles related to computer graphics
 * --Dwarfpower (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I really suggest you don't insult other editors by implying they don't have "authority" to comment on articles. This is not how Wikipedia works.  It is a collaborative system that - although it does have a hierarchy (i.e uses administrators to perform different tasks) - it relies on all editors discussing the values of an article.  That aside, the article has been nominated as advertising, not as through a lack of notability.  You may benefit from reading the neutral point of view policy and the stub guideline.  The latter explains how article length (and in this case, age) are not necessarily correlated with article quality.  If there is not enough information to put in this article (perhaps due to it being a new product or service), then it may not be quite ready for an article.  Personally, I don't see why this article can't just be part of the Silicon Graphics, Inc. article for the time being.  Booglamay (  talk  ) - 14:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Jasynnash2 argues the product has not required notability to have an article. As I pointed out in my comment this is a product by the most notorious actor on the field at hand. SGI Virtu is the most important release of SGI in that field since the Indigo workstation. I did not insult User:Jasynnash2, I pointed out that he does not seem to have personal knowledge of the field at hand, as he did not contributed to any article of that field and as his personnal presentation page does not mention any interest in the field ( thought it list many fields of interest ), I only mentionned that I did not think e had personnal knowledge to judge the relevance of the article. I added 3rd party sources to the article. Of course since the article is a stub, and was created as one, references are not numerous. In compliance with Stub guidelines, the article facts are accurate and unbiased.


 * The article is not an advertising, as does not solicit for a business, product or service, nor does it use sales-oriented language ( I quote from the SPAM criteria ). It describes in neutral term the existence of a product. Let me remind that Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. ( direct from Criteria for speedy deletion ) --Dwarfpower (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine. Since I don't have expert knowledge in the subject I'll remove the speedy myself and replace it with an AfD tag. At which point I will still be nominating it for its spamminess, lack of notability, and verifiability through reliable sources. You can discuss it with experts there. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)