Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix (computer)

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 No consensus (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix (computer)

This was a mainframe computer at the University of Cambridge from 1971 to 1995. While the university itself and many of its former users are notable, and perhaps some notable projects were developed in whole or in part on it, I am not sure that the same can be said of the computer itself. Certainly a Google search for "MVS Phoenix" fails to turn up more than trivial coverage in reliable sources. Snthdiueoa (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the nominator's first edit to Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I have edited anonymously in the past, so I'm not a complete n00b. Please consider this nomination strictly on its merits, viz., WP:RS, WP:V, etc. Snthdiueoa (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's okay, I wasn't accusing you of being a single purpose account or anything. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a couple of sources, I will admit they are on the border of reliability, but considering the age of the device in question, it is difficult to find a heap of online sources. The computer itself seems notable as games were developed on it and it seems to have spawned a "lively" bulletin board that continues to exist today (30 + years). I have flagged the article for Rescue so we'll see how we go, but it really needs the attention of an expert from that era with sources. Fosnez (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was an early user in 1972-3. As I recall, one party trick was writing code to play tunes on the line printer. I was more impressed by the batch scheduler which had been written in-house. Anyway, the article seems good enough now. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As I understand it, and this is why I made the nomination in the first place, the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is significant coverage in multiple third party sources that are independent of the subject. The only sources cited so far are by the machine's former users. In order for this article to stay it needs to establish notability by that criterion, not by how well written it is. While I can understand that it could potentially have a claim to notability, there just doesn't seem to be sufficient coverage out there to warrant it. Snthdiueoa (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - By that argument, we'd have trouble supporting an article on the Internet. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - By your counter-argument we'd never delete anything :) I'm just going by what I've read in Wikipedia's notability criteria. Snthdiueoa (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The examples given in that guideline are: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. This article is something different as it's not a case of vanity or PR - it's a small piece of scientific history. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Online sources for something this old will be almost impossible to find. The fact that the BBS started 30 years ago on the Phoenix is still running seems to be notable to me Fosnez (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        On the contrary, most notable computers from the era seem to have plenty of online coverage, but oddly enough, this one seems a bit thin on the ground to me. Most of what I can find seems to come from its fans. Still, as you say, there may be plenty of offline references (computer science journals, gaming magazines etc) -- however, we need to see these references. Snthdiueoa (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although there have been two keep nominations and some attempts to rescue the article, no-one has yet addressed my concerns about this article, namely, the deficiency of reliable sources in third party publications. A computer of this era that can really be considered notable in and of itself should have substantial coverage in plenty of third party sources, and I find it very difficult to believe that these would all be offline given that it was an Internet era computer. Snthdiueoa (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Calling it an internet era computer is a bit hard pressed... It was first turned on in 1973. When it was finially switched off for the last time in 1995, it was hardly cutting edge and "notable". It was however, notable way back in the 70s, but of course the internet was not around back then... Trying to find online articles on it would be like trying to find new articles about IBM Deep Blue written within the last year that cover the it extensivly, and not just mention it (this is just an example, even if you can find a new article on IBM Deep Blue does not invalidate the above example) Fosnez (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, early Internet era then. (Don't forget that the Internet has been around since the late sixties.) However, there is still a lot of stuff about computer science available online from that era. And here's another question: what exactly was the computer itself notable for? The Wikipedia article on the bulletin board itself was deleted a while back after a unanimous AfD and apart from that, all we have is that some games were developed on it. And the comparison with Deep Blue is even more hard pressed -- that made international headlines in the mainstream popular media. Snthdiueoa (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the internet has been around since the 60s, but the World Wide Web has really only been around since about 1992, and not a lot exists from those early dark days (some say thankfully). I would question the "unanimous" part of the AfD of GROGGS as there was only 2 comments, and we can't see the original aricle. Deep Blue was the first computer that came to mind, unfortunatly I am too young to remember mainstream media from the 70s, so I can't comment if it was popular in that timeframe. However, from reading the article itself and the references that are infact online, I think this computer and the games produced on it would be very informative to someone doing a "history of games" type essay. Fosnez (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is still sufficient coverage in reliable, third party sources that determine whether an article's existence is appropriate. Personally I don't see enough of those, though at a push the article could be redirected or merged into University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory (~~but for the fact that~~that article itself ~~doesn't mention it at all~~ only links to it without further comment.) Snthdiueoa (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2008 (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.