Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Shannon (computer programmer)

Bob Shannon

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

Questionable Notability. "First BBS System for <specific antiquated computer>" with hints of a reference in a outdated COMPUTE!'s Gazette magazine doesn't strike me as particularity notable. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable, and at least one reference (in the form of the COMPUTE! Gazette article referred to) exists. References don't have to be online to be valid. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me how to verify this assertion? Or for that matter, how designing not the first BBS system in existence, but rather one that worked on a particular system is notable? It seems to be a stretch. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IFF this content can be adequately sourced. Otherwise, baleet it. JBsupreme (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 00:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Some of the info appears true [1], but not enough to pass WP:ANYBIO in my view. I just don't see how this is "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". Pcap ping 01:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A portion of the COMPUTE!'s Gazette article cited is available on the subject's homepage. —Korath (Talk) 01:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That hardly satisfies WP:GNG as it's 3-paragraphs in one article presumably not exclusively about him. There's no mention of him or his BBS in textfiles.com, which is generally accepted as reliable source per [2]. The is also no mention of him or his BBS in this list (the site of BBS: The Documentary), which has over 800 software listed. The fact that he says on his home page "Skeptics abound as per me calling myself the founder of the BBS System." is a good reason to be very suspicious of anything sourced from there. See CBBS, which matches the book source I linked above. Pcap ping 01:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe especially since most of the sources pre-date Google. We shouldn't delete topics (even computer topics) just because publications discussing them are not readily available online. Understanding history of software (and the people associated with it) is an excellent thing for WP to document, and this seems like an obviously notable individual in that early history of PCs. LotLE×talk 01:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sole claim to notability, or source of interest from a computer history standpoint, is his BBS Electric Magazine. A move there is worth considering if better sourcing turns up (I spent the last half hour digging in my basement for that Compute!'s Gazette issue, to no avail), but I'm not seeing anything that would pass WP:BIO. —Korath (Talk) 01:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Most of this article was autobiographical. See the old AfD for another IP whose prefix matches this one, and admits to be Shannon. You may also want to read the comment made by Jason Scott Sadofsky (User:jscott) in the previous AfD. The claim that his is the 1st Commodore VIC-20 BBS is also dubious given that bbsdocumentary.com only lists one such system, and it isn't Shannon's; see [3]. The COMPUTE!'s Gazette snippet only mentions Commodore 64 as platform for "Electric Magazine". Pcap ping 02:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to verify the claim made by the author of this autobiography. First BBS may be notable, but first for a specific computer would require very good sourcing showing significance. Verbal chat 16:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the first to write a BBS system for a particular machine isn't especially notable, particularly since other 6502 BBS systems already existed. Mangoe (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He may have done something. That something may be notable. That's fine so far as it goes, but it's not enough to show that he's notable, much less to use as a basis for an article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Once notable, always notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP1E. Pcap ping 23:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those who said delete, please look at the long version [4] of the article. Some valid information was erased by someone who wants the article deleted. I don't think seven hours after someone tags something as needing a citation, that section should be erased by someone else. Give people time to find information, someone perhaps having one of those old magazines. If he got such praise in a notable magazine of the time, he is clearly notable. Dream Focus 06:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "valid" information is unverifiable. I tagged it as such and JBsupreme deleted it per his standard routine. By the way, the info was added by the subject of the autobiography himself. Pcap ping 06:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The person adding it should've been asked to scan in the magazine article in question and list exactly what issue it was in. I just got done searching around, and can't find anything more than pictures of the covers of that magazine, the text not backed up anywhere online. I'll do that now, and ask people who have contributed to the Wikipedia article for that magazine, if any of them own any old copies, or know where to find it. Dream Focus 06:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - FWIW this person apparently has a reputation for making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to claims-to-fame, and any such autobiographical reference is simply unreliable. I don't say this lightly. JBsupreme (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing particularly new that is notable in that diff besides unverifiable peacock, weasel, and promotional wording. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he is famous after all for his edits on Wikipedia—textfiles.com article about that. Pcap ping 08:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sourcing on this isn't anywhere close to establishing notability, and doesn't do a great job of establishing the given facts. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have posted a scan of the COMPUTE!'s Gazette article in question here. It mentions Shannon and one other sysop, as examples; this 3-page sidebar article is part of a larger article about the increased use of BBS telecommunications on Commodore systems. It gives a bit of background on Shannon and the other guy (who, AFAIK, doesn't have an article and probably shouldn't). It says nothing about the claim that he was the first person to create a BBS for the VIC-20, so that claim will have to be sourced elsewhere. *** Crotalus *** 14:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was he in two different articles that year? The article mentions quotes from an article the same writer wrote called "BBS Fever". What you uploaded is an article called "The Indispensable Sysop". Dream Focus 19:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 3-page "Indispensable Sysop" sidebar article was part of a larger article called "Bulletin Board Fever", which is presumably the one you're referring to. Only the blue sidebar had any mention of Shannon (and it seems to function as an article in its own right), so that was the only portion I posted. *** Crotalus *** 20:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice I'd like to inform everyone of this message posted on Wikiproject Software by the writer of the article in question. [5]. Assistance in verifying and explaining to the new editor about reasons that self published information might be in violation of policy is welcome. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]