Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCoIP

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PCoIP

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Product that can be adequately discussed, if it is indeed relevant, at the desktop virtualization article. Currently just being used as a vehicle for refspam, and I don't see it being developed into an encyclopedic article given the current coverage (or lack thereof, rather) in reliable sources. jæs (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to meet the general notability guideline, based on a few minutes of Googling: [1] [2] [3]. On a personal level, as an IT sysadmin, I found the existing article quite informative. Thparkth (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we reading the same articles? The first two links both are trade pieces about VMware choosing to license this product from Teradici, while the third mentions it in passing. The general notability guideline says: "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere 'flash in the pan,' nor a result of promotional activity..." The coverage was not specifically, substantially, about this product, the coverage (and the "event") was a "flash in the pan," and these three mentions were undoubtedly directly the result of a press release the two companies put out when they signed their licensing agreement. I agree that the company is interesting, and the article here may be "informative," but we are not a trade publication, and none of those three stories/columns appear to establish encyclopedic notability, unless I'm missing something... jæs (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't agree at all with your characterization of these articles. I don't think anyone could reasonably conclude that they were "the result of promotional material". They are significant - "addresses the subject in detail", independent - "excludes work produced by those affiliated with the subject", and from reliable sources - "editorial integrity". Admittedly the third I gave is a bit weak, but it was literally from two minutes spent on Google news. There are hundreds more hits to plow through if anyone has the time. I restate that the topic is obviously notable per the general notability guideline. None of the exceptions you give are pertinent. Thparkth (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Too detailed for a merge to desktop virtualization, and this is just one vendor's solution. Independent coverage exists as pointed out above by Thparkth. "In essence, Teradici is VMware's attack dog in the protocol wars". [4] You're not proposing we delete RDP or ICA next, are you? I agree that some of these VDI articles are poor quality, but that's how 90% of Wikipedia computing articles are. Pcap ping 12:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'm not proposing the deletion of RDP or ICA, because both are in widespread use, with significant reliable coverage establishing their notability. jæs (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 12:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some independent coverage to the article in the mean time. Pcap ping 02:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.