Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Security System
Was nominated for speedy deletion but it doesn't meet the speedy criteria. Moving to VfD. Rhobite 19:07, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete No sources, highly unlikely to be correct. PPGMD
- Kill it. -- Schnee 19:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Unverified, probably unverifiable, of dubious value. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:17, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Very unlikely. -- AlistairMcMillan 19:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Jayjg 21:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Indrian 22:01, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete unless verifiable sources are provided and at least partially verified prior to expiration of VfD. Would be an interesting article if true, but no way in hell should this be allowed to stand on the basis of simple assertion from an anon. Suggest contributor send the material to Robert X. Cringely, (707) 525-9519, (707) 525-9517 (fax), bob@cringely.com. If Cringely uses it in his column, then I say we can use it (referencing Cringely). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:54, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Doesn't appear to be true, and not notable even if true. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 23:01, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, this probably shouldn't be speedied. I'm still voting delete, though. Lord Bob 23:35, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- I worked there for a bit and can verify that some of the details (especially the NDA and contact bits), but my word doesn't matter without sources anyway. Delete. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 01:36, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- If you wanted to edit the article, removing everything from it that you can't personally attest to, and put a note on the talk page specifying the things you can vouch for, giving yourself as the source, including your real identity and a means of contacting you, then I would vote to keep the article and hope for expansion. I think the essentials of scholarship are a) traceability of facts to sources, and b) a means of judging reliability of sources. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I could only verify a few of the small details like MS's NDA of Doom, but they really aren't important in the scope of the article. I also rang up another MS employee, who wishes to remain nameless, who said it was either bunk or a breach of the NDA. Either way, it should be deleted. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 05:03, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- If you wanted to edit the article, removing everything from it that you can't personally attest to, and put a note on the talk page specifying the things you can vouch for, giving yourself as the source, including your real identity and a means of contacting you, then I would vote to keep the article and hope for expansion. I think the essentials of scholarship are a) traceability of facts to sources, and b) a means of judging reliability of sources. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)