Talk:Gibson Research Corporation

References Needed

For this statement: "These tools are created by a software marketer, and not a security expert. Gibson is quoted as saying 'I set up a deliberate disinformation campaign from the beginning'"; and it has to be not from http://www.grcsucks.com/, but from the original source. NeoThe1 13:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I do not believe this is the proper place to put it. It's criticism of Gibson, not of his company. If we didn't have a Gibson page, I would agree that here would be the best place, but we do have such a page. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree on the out-of-place argument. GRC is as close as it gets to a one-man-show and either we pull this article altogether and redirect to Steve Gibson (which would be perfectly fine by me) or we include fair warning here that Gibson is controversial.

Even if we were to retain the article, the criticism belongs here as much as the third item of the Steve Gibson criticism section is also part of the Security Now! article because the controversial claim was made in that podcast.

Not to start an edit war, I won't put the criticsim section back in for a couple of days to allow for a conclusive debate on the subject. --Ministry of Truth 00:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If you believe the article should be deleted, then there are methods for doing so. Making a note of the criticism is likely appropriate, but copying the whole section seems over the top. --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You're perfectly right.

I have given the creator of the article, Alexwcovington, a heads-up that I contemplate to propose it for deletion in a couple of days and invited him to comment. --Ministry of Truth 14:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Answers.com

I have removed the notice for the following reason:

Answers.com copied Wikipedia, not the other way around. As they state on the entry: "This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)"

--Falcorian ^(talk) 23:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge

This should be merged with Steve Gibson, GRC is an unremarkable company of three people and more or less exists as the corporate entity of Gibson. It's existence is a feature of Steve Gibson and the Wikipedia should reflect this. Elomis 19:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, but please sign you remarks with ~~~~.

GRC is considerably more notable than many other company pages in the Wikipedia. It certainly isn't unremarkable; it's of some note. This page also has scope for growth from its current stubby existance. The fact that the point above has to resort to using the awkward expression "a feature of Steve Gibson" suggests that lack of a substantive argument. The main reason why I am in favour of keeping the pages separate is for consistency - readers are used to finding biographical pages and company pages (which get categorized in different ways). This page could be a section on the Steve Gibson page but it would fit in with what readers expect if it stays as a separate page. Greenshed 22:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, its generally established and accepted that Wikipedia articles do not set precedent. That is, the existence of other articles of similiar or lesser notability is irrelevant to whether or not this article needs to be merged or deleted. All that truly demonstrates is that there are other articles that might need to be merged or deleted as well. In order to determine if GRC deserves an article of its own, we should apply WP:CORP to it and see how it holds up:

• The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. Well, Google gives us 48,400 hits on "Gibson Research Corporation" -"Steve" (to include only articles about the company, rather than Steve Gibson).
• The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications. No dice.
• The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices. That's a negative here too.

It matches only one of the three criteria, but one is all it takes. So, does this meet the technical threshhold for inclusion? Yeah, I have to it admit it probably does -- barely. The next question that needs to be asked is, "will this article ever be more than a stub?" For that, I let the article speak for itself. The article was first established 22 months ago. In nearly two years, its gotten less than 30 edits and is still only 4 sentences in length. My guess is "probably not". Therefore, let's merge this with Steve Gibson's article. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 05:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to confess that I was previously not aware of WP:CORP. Obviously, we have to go by that. The article has gone up and down in length over its existence and whilst it may well stay a stub for ages, I would suggest that there is more than enough information available to write a full-length article. Therefore, it has the potential to cease being a stub. Because of this and my categorization point, I'm still not in favour of the merge, although I do conceed that a case for merging can be made. Greenshed 20:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree that there is more than enough material to make a sizable article about GRC. In looking over the Google searches, I found people who think GRC is the best company ever, and others that consider it the scourge of the Earth (seems no one takes the middle ground on this one). Here's what I recommend for a compromise:

• Merge the article with Steve Gibson for now. If information about GRC starts to become too large in that article, we can split it back off to this one.
• We, of course, keep this article as a redirect.
• To allay your concern about categorization, we can always categorize the redirect. That's actually rather common.

Think that will work? -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 21:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think that will likely work, it's never neccessary to avoid a merge or split just because although it's relevant now it may not be relevant later. (in sensible doses) it's always possible to merge something because it's not notable enough yet but split it later when it is. I'm one of an important section of wikipedians who believe that the WP should be descriptive, not prescriptive; if there are multiple articles about a personality of any sort (Steve Gibson, GRC, Steve Gibson's cat, list of places Steve Gibson has eaten...) each one needs to stand up to notability tests independantly or be merged with ones that do until they can otherwise we run the risk of making someone or something more notable by our own actions. I'm sorry you considered my expression awkward, I personally think I hit the target spot on. Corporations law and practice in most developed countries outlines ways and reasons for corporations existing; some of the reasons are incorporating an individual or posse for tax minimisation or (I believe in this case) to maximise credibility by putting a seperate legal entity's weight behind your efforts, some of the reasons are a sensible logic behind creating a seperate legal entity for public ownership. If GRC floats itself on the NASDAQ or even comes up with a product that receives technology industry acclaim, I'll seperate the content myself into a new article. Until then let's not be personally responsible for adding notability to GRC but rather comment on it as it stands. (Sorry I didn't sign my original comment :-) ) Elomis 23:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I am in favour of the proposed merge, providing this article becomes a [categorized] redirect. I add this "two pennyworth" as a regular visitor to grc.com DFH 12:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a merge. "GRC" and GRC.COM are really just extensions of Gibson. Take "Korova Multimedia" and KOROVA.COM, my fictitious business name and my main domain. Would they merit separate description? Not really, according to WP:CORP. Since GRC is an expression of Gibson, an outlet for his utilities and his blog and his opinion and, arguably, his tirades and crusades,... and that the article is a moribund stub, what good is it doing anyone as no more than a stepping stone to the page about him? I say, merge away. David Spalding ^{Talk, Contribs} 20:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I say go ahead and merge, try it, it can always be redone if it doesn't seem to work. Ausburng 10:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge--137.205.76.74 13:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Merge go for it, should have been done by now SGGH ^speak! 22:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC) As of this date, I don't believe there is any need for anything but a redirect.Ausburng 09:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ausburng (talk • contribs)