Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Security System
Microsoft Security System was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete.
I am the creator of this page. Sorry that I posted anonymously, I just forgot to log in. My source wishes to remain anonymous, but the fact that several people below have confirmed some details of what I have written surely is something to you guys. [[User:Kidburla2002|Kidburla2002]] 16:50, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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. If the only confirmable fact on this page is the NDA then I strongly suggest deletion. Every major software developer gets their employees to sign NDAs, that Microsoft does it is not notable. Microsoft store their source code in their "Source Repository"? Where the hell else would they store it, in a greenhouse, behind the fridge, in Bill G.'s underpants? "there are quite a lot of Microsoft employees who do not quite understand how the NTFS code works"? Really, so you mean only the people who deal with NTFS on a day to day basis are familiar with the code? Golly. The guy is right though about them being secretive about who develops stuff there, no one knows that kind of stuff. <cough>Gary Kimura & Tom Miller</cough>-- 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)
UPDATE: The best email address to send it to is cringe@infoworld.com, which is the submission address for his InfoWorld column. If he uses it the contributor gets $50. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:37, 27 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)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.