Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Shannon (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn (and little chance of deletion anyway). -Amarkov moo! 14:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Shannon

Terry Shannon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

It's been three weeks since the last AfD nomination, and the sourcing is still terrible. A few of the things are too short to be called sources, and most are from the guy's personal website. I'm sure he was a great guy, but he isn't notable. Amarkov moo! 00:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn due to the article from the Boston Globe. The referencing is still terrible, but not enough for deletion. And meatpuppetry is still bad, but that was never a reason for deletion in the first place. -Amarkov moo! 14:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep He was a very notable person in the DEC world 80.192.15.161 01:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Keep No doubt this AfD will turn into another SPA and sockfest. It's a shame none of those voting Keep in the previous AfD bothered to fix what is still a messy and shoddily sourced article. However, for what it's worth I do think Shannon had borderline notability. The article needs a good cleanup and the removal of irrelevant sourcing. Edit: I just had to revert this diff. EliminatorJR Talk 01:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


Sheesh... Another one who is infected with the "if it's not on the `net, it doesn't exist" disease. That is why there are so few online references, save for his seminal book... Dan Schwartz, Expresso@Snip.Net Discpad 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve the refs. - Kittybrewster 02:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It's been three weeks. It's been advertised in the Inquirer AND Wikipedia Review AND a bunch of other random sites that we want sources. Is there a good reason to believe that the refs can be improved? -Amarkov moo! 03:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and agree with EliminatorJR on the silly fact. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 03:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now Three weeks? Maybe if there were something negative in the article, but I don't see the current content as grounds for haste in deletion. Try waiting three months instead. FrozenPurpleCube 03:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I might have waited longer, except that canvassing in defense of an article really annoys me, and the concerns addressed in the last AfD were never resolved, just meatpuppeted into closure. Advertising a discussion all over the Internet should not have the power to postpone it for months. -Amarkov moo! 03:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think if you are annoyed, the wise thing to do is back away. Wikipedia does not benefit from you succumbing to a personal grude and that's what annoyance means to me. If anything, you've given me further reason to say you should have waited longer. FrozenPurpleCube 06:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The topic of deleting the Terry Shannon article has been debated and settled; and is also the subject of several stories in The Inquirer, including Terry Shannon nominated for Wikipedia deletion; Terry Shannon gets Wikipedia reprieve and Terry Shannon archive material wanted for Wikiporpoise

It is recommended that computer newbies, i.e. guys that think "it's not a computer `cause I can't plug my iPod in it" should search Google here and here for references to The Register and The Inquirer. Dan Schwartz, Discpad 03:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

    • That doesn't address the concerns at all. At the very most, there is one reliable, independent source. WP:N requires multiple reliable, independent sources. And your incivility certainly doesn't help. By the way, the topic was never settled, it was simply hammered into submission by meatpuppetry. -Amarkov moo! 03:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment To second that just because an article survive deletion debate does not mean it cannot be nominated again. Also try and be civil, an new editor throwing the word newbie around seems a little odd to me. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Daniel, I said you are a computer newbie. The fact that you are only 22 years old means I was programming a PDP-8 and an Altair 8800 (serial number 7) almost a decade before you were born.
Daniel, there's a lot to the history of computing besides just commodity boxes that have an "intel inside" sticker. In case you didn't know, over 90% of the ATM machines worldwide use OpenVMS. Anybody who writes a book on the subject that sells over a hundred thousand copies certainly is noteworthy.
Also, may I suggest you look at the Index of articles in The Register and anotherindex of articles in The Inquirer. Discpad 03:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up I voted to delete last time, but I think the article can be sourced. It will probably need to be shortened though. A lack of speed in a clean up should not mean that an article should be deleted it can take months or even years. Canvassing and bad faith actions are not reasons to delete an article either, although certainly I know how you feel. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm confused. If you voted to delete last time, why do you now believe it can be sourced? Is there some new information I missed? -Amarkov moo! 03:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep I guess that's why you didn't vote for wiki accountability 80.192.15.161 01:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't give you one of those sources that ends an AfD debate like a independent biography case but I can see that most of the information can be sourced from the provided references although they do not all meet WP:ATT. If I were to make a policy backed argument I would point to the section of WP:BIO that discusses creative professionals. I think it is pretty clear that Mr. Shannon made a significant contribution to the computer world. The policy violations and sock/meat puppetry shouldn't cloud our judgment. If the article doesn't get a good make over in the next six months than I might consider voting delete, but there is no big hurry in the wiki world. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, just wondering if there was something obvious I missed. -Amarkov moo! 05:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep & Cleanup He is a published writer (not that is grounds for notability in all cases), but an investigation into his writings and any effects they have had on any community is worth note. A better picture (if any available) would better suit the article. --Ozgod 03:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- article appears to have a relatively decent number of sources at the moment, and the subject appears reasonably notable within the VAX/VMS world. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • But I never denied that there were a decent number of sources. The issue is that most are unreliable, from his own website, or don't really source anything, just tangientally mention him. -Amarkov moo! 04:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A whole lot of helium inflating very little substance. --Calton | Talk 04:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability seems well-established. --Carnildo 05:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Also, in response to Discpad, please remember that consensus is not immutable and that it can be changed.--TBCΦtalk? 05:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I did not know who the guy was before I stumbled on this discussion, but even the currently sloppy and poorly-sourced article, when combined with a basic Google search, is enough to convince me that Shannon is notable. Consider also that there is no direct relation between quantity of media coverage and notability. If much of this guy's career required him to operate out of the limelight, it is entirely plausible that he would generate far less media coverage than, say, a minor league baseball player, while his role in shaping the world we live in may have been far greater. I agree that irrelevant issues such as sock puppetry appear to be clouding the nominating editor's judgment. -Pete 09:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article needs improvement, cleanup and better sourcing, but that is not solved by deleting it. Pax:Vobiscum 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Let me talk about this as someone who has been working fairly heavily on sourcing over the last couple of weeks. Much of Terry's work was done offline, in the pre-Google days. Sourcing that stuff requires research beyond 'Google it'. I have been to libraries and have been requesting paper copies of Terry's work, but as you may know if you have ever used a library, this stuff takes time to pull up and research, especially given that it is older stuff. Right now I have magazines and books en route to me to source more of this article.

I don't think anyone is debating notability any more - Terry's notability within the VAX/VMS community has been well established (fulfilling WP:BIO on the contribution to field criterion). If the debate is over the sourcing, it should be noticed that this, like every Wikipedia article, is a work in progress - if the problem is with sources, don't delete the article, contribute and help find the sources.

Unfortunately, the article has been screwed up by the Wikipedia editing community. One cranky editor went through and added citation needed's to every sentence in the article. I went through and removed most of what couldn't physically be cited and added in sources for the rest. Now the editing community says that it lacks meat and has irrelevant sources. Unfortunately, this is what happens when you get over-enthusiastic (misguided?) editors with personal quests.

Hope this helps.Pinkboy 10:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

    • comment Thanks, Pinkboy. Lack of notability seems like the only potential reason for deletion; I can't imagine that anybody would argue with your argument about poor sourcing not being a cause to delete the entire article. Put a {{unreferenced}} tag on it, and be done with it - is there still anyone around who would disagree with that resolution? -Pete 10:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, same as last time (wow! three weeks already? How time flies!) -- Atlant 11:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, While I do not have the time at the moment to find all of the citations, there are many citations to Terry's work. Terry was a regular presenter on the US and international speaking circuit in Digital/Compaq/HP community. I believe that the back issues of his newsletter are available online. The copies of his presentations may have fallen offline due to the re-organization of DECUS as Encompass, and the dissolution of Interex. His contributions to the field were extremely significant -- User:Gezelterrl 12:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, basically, agreeing with Pinkboy. The additions to this article are excellent; there is no lack-of-references argument anymore. Most of Shannon's work was done pre-Web, with magazines that never got digitized, so it's understandable that 22-year-old gamers don't know who he was (which is all the more reason for keeping the article). To those of us with a lot of experience in the technology industry, T. Shannon was one of the movers and shakers, back in the day. That's all the "notable" we need. Keep! -- User:info@kafalas.com 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough for a stub at the minimum based on the present sourcing, so why push for another AfD? There are better things we can spend time on then play shoot till we win. - Denny 13:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Keep - Very well sourced so passes notability...--Cometstyles 15:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - keynote speaker at major HP user conference [1] --Amaccormack 15:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep No question on notability.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A very significant person within the VMS/OpenVMS community: Bclaremont 20:36 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The "not notable" criticism is ludicrous and appears to be a dead issue. It appears that a consensus is building that more references (or "sources") should be added. Many references to document Shannon's contributions are available in print media only, and many of them are difficult to obtain, except from those who saved them from several years ago. Thus, they take more time to post here on Wikipedia. A request has gone out for old issues of Digital Review and other sources of articles written about Shannon. Harvard-style references to those will be added in due time. The Cape 23:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an important point. It is not easy to obtain a lot of Shannon's writing -- and articles in other tech journals from the same period that discuss Shannon and his work. So it's not that us oldsters are slacking off in our efforts to find more references; it's that many of them are difficult to obtain.User:info@kafalas.com 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep -- the article has improved since I previously nominated it for AfD in February, and one source has been put forth for the biographical info: "Graham, Lamar B. (1992) The Nerd Who Came In from the Cold, Boston Magazine, February 1992, 52-55, 90-91." If that citation can be confirmed as being about Shannon, and not merely mentioning him in passing, then he does fulfill WP:BIO. Finally, I would again caution those who take an antagonistically protectionist stance in regards to material that doesn't follow our policy, that Wikipedians tend to look disfavourably upon personal attacks and assumption of bad faith. Yes, Discpad, this means you.--LeflymanTalk 07:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Just to say that the above article has been uploaded and hyperlinked as a PDF - hope this helps! Pinkboy 11:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, personal attacks should be avoided; blasting contributors as "meatpuppets" and such like has no place in this discussion. Additional print sources added; varying degrees of Shannon content, including one that is more of a background piece, explaining the dynamics between Ziff and McGovern, which were the two largest tech publishing firms in the 1980s, an understanding of which is essential to putting Shannon's contributions in context.User:info@kafalas.com 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it snowing yet?

Shouldn't this AfD be close via the Snowball clause?

Atlant 12:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Yep. Stick a reference tag on, get rid of the bit about this AfD, and lets give the references time to arrive. EliminatorJR Talk 14:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Too late, I withdrew my nomination. :P -Amarkov moo! 14:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
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.