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 this is silly. The process has been irreparably tainted. However I do think this guy was significant in his field. I recommend giving the article a bit of time to mature and revisiting this issue later if we must. Friday (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Shannon[edit]

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

Non-notable bio. Wikipedia is not a memorial. While Mr. Shannon may have been known within a small community for his newsletter/website, there are no actual independent, reliable sources about him as a subject, as required by WP:BIO-- just articles about Compaq/HP that he had written. --Leflyman^Talk 02:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because The Inquirer pointed you here, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Note that Leflyman has vandalized the original page; and furthermore vandalized the new Shannon Knows DEC page listing by replacing the content with a redirect to the Terry Shannon page marked for deletion...Talk about self-serving!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Discpad (talk •contribs) 18:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment While it's obviously not a good idea to start messing with pages related to ones you've AfD'd, the nom was probably too kind with the Shannon Knows DEC page, which being simply a collection of links was a candidate for speedy deletion under A3 rather than redirection. This would all be a lot easier if someone could just source this article. Shannon appears to return a few Ghits, trouble is I can't find anything major that satisfies WP:BIO. If he's that notable, it shouldn't be that difficult, surely. EliminatorJR 19:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: please check to discount the numerous comments spurred on by Mike Magee in The Inquirer who wrote, "You can say many things about Wikipedia too, one being the fact that its editors are notable for sticking their own heads up their bums instead of looking for a light switch."--Leflyman^Talk 17:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Note to closing admin: please check that the comments in favour of deletion are also not SPA or sock puppets. e.g. Daniel_J._Leivick has been a Wikipedian for 2 weeks less than info@kafalas.com --Amaccormack 17:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Further note: WP:SOCK states that "It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate." It is clearly not the case that all readers of the Inquirer are likely to have known views and/or bias on this topic, merely that the Editor of the Inquirer has such a bias. To make that assumption would assume a single-mindedness of purpose and thought surely beyond a group of millions of individuals! I would submit a mis-use of the SPA tag, as per WP:SPA - "Users are cautioned to assume good faith". Pinkboy 17:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Pinkboy's observations are circular, because the subject of the article (Terry Shannon, was often quoted in TheInquirer.Net publication. Discpad 18:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Dan Schwartz[reply]

• Delete per nom. One ghit for "Terry Shannon" "Digital Review" -wikipedia. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 03:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; Terry was a commercially successful author in several magazines and, for a while, the authority on rumours about Digital Equipment Corporation. -- Atlant 13:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only one of the external links on the article is even about Shannon at all, and it's a memorial page. FALSE Another contains a message board post by Shannon, a third merely contains a link to the first, and the last one doesn't contain Shannon's name anywhere. These are not sources. See Wikipedia:Attribution. Google doesn't turn up anything more useful. Clearly, this man was not as notable as you claim. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 13:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's see... Shannon authored a book that sold 100,00 copies in the first printing alone. Discpad 16:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Dan Schwartz[reply]
  • In fact, I have gone ahead and removed the three completely irrelevant links from the article, leaving the memorial page, which, while clearly not a reliable source, seems to be the most significant page about this man outside of Wikipedia. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 13:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You must not have seen these I guess. networkworld.com, Introduction to Vax/Vms (Paperback)
• Additional comment - I think it's relevant to this AfD to point out that Atlant has admitted to counting Terry Shannon among his or her "extended friends". This may or may not be a Conflict of interest, but could illuminate this user's motives for opposing deletion. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 14:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; What is the point of an encyclopedia if it is not a source of obscure information..? How can you judge content on the basis of whether it is notable or not? Notable to whom? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.203.152.2 (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC).— 140.203.152.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Oppose; Terry Shannon was huge when DEC was huge. It is true you can't find links to his works because the rags he wrote for are out of business. davebarnes— davebarnes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose; Mr. Shannon was a noted journailst and DIGITAL analyst, with DEC and then successor Compaq purchasing company-wide subscriptions to his newsletter. The quality of his analysis, though, irritated Hewlett-Packard (the successor to Compaq), which actively attempted to thwart his writings. Discpad 15:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Dan Schwartz[reply]
• Oppose;[[1]] He was a well respected tech journalist. Misguided opinions don't mean it should be deleted. Guess what [2] is only known 'within a small community'.
• OpposeBrightc 15:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)— Brightc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Oppose; After the Digital/Compaq merger into HP Terry Shannon actively reported on and tracked the developments in the expanded Hewlett-Packard Company. As an executive for HP I regularly interacted with Mr. Shannon on technology reviews and briefings on new product introductions. Though he was perceived often as a gadfly rather than a traditional, "buttoned up" journalist, his unfiltered commentary was useful in blowing the cobwebs out of big corporations. That was his significant contribution and Mr. Shannon's entry in Wikipedia should continue to exist as a key example of a non-traditional journalist working the IT trade press.— 15.246.143.45 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep/Oppose Deletion per sane comments.--213.46.128.161 15:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per previous Oppose comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fel64 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Oppose; Not being a notable person is an individual opinion and not a proper justification for deletion. — 217.196.248.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Yes, actually, it is. Please read up on WP:BIO HackJandy 16:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability (in the Wikipedia world) is not subjective. It is clearly laid out in WP:BIO. This clearly person does not meet these criteria. Despite the objections of his friends if you really want to keep this article then you will find some sources. --Daniel J. Leivick 15:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, being the author of an authoratative book that sold 100,000 copies is not "notable?" Mr. Shannon was certainly notable in both the IT industry and IT publishing industries. Discpad 16:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Dan Schwartz[reply]
• Delete per nom. The Inquirer has gone out of its way to post an article on this in hopes that his entry won't be deleted, which is my guess as to the flood of "oppose" threads without much backing. Maybe they should make a memorial webpage on their server instead. HackJandy 16:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; Leflyman does not mention Shannon authored Introduction to VAX/VMS through Professional Press in May 1985 (ISBN:096147291X). The 2nd edition was published by CBM Books in October 1987 (ISBN:0961472944)

[3]. Furthermore, Leflyman states false information because Terry Shannon was profiled in NetworkWorld Magazine— Preceding unsigned comment added by Discpad (talk • contribs) 09:58, 22 February 2007

Comment: This is the second (or third or however) repeat "Oppose" comment from Discpad/Dan --Leflyman^Talk 17:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Deletion; Terry Shannon's site http://www.shannonknowshpc.com had a huge impact on me when I was tasked with programming on Tru64 UNIX a.k.a. Digital UNIX. It made me appreciate DEC and the alpha chip as well as the best UNIX ever written. While politicians might be remembered for more than a 100 years, Shannon was well loved by people in the computing field and I consider him worth remembering over politicians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.232.182.41 (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC). — 208.232.182.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is getting a little out of hand. When I say notable I mean it in the Wikipedia sense. Please see WP:BIO and provide sources that meet WP:RS. We can't have an article sourced entirely from the subjects own writing and the memories of his friends.--Daniel J. Leivick 16:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As per WP:BIO The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.— 62.49.123.206 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Oppose Shannon was not personally known to me, but his journalism was an important part of the industry I worked in for many years. If you can't find any hits on google this this says more about the duration and scope of the Web than about Shannon's significance at that time and in that industry (I was there, then, and I trust my own memories even though I can't substantiate them with web pages). --Zooko O'Whielacronx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.97.232.97 (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC). — 209.97.232.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Oppose As per WP:BIO, The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. Shannon was considered an authorative expert on HP and the high performance computing field, spoke at many conferences, and has been quoted as an authority in the articles of other established journalists on many occasions. See Techweb, OSNews, ITNews, HP Decus NZ. Pinkboy 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As per WP:BIO's central notability criteria requiring multiple (meaning more than one) newspaper (or similar) articles primarily concerned with the person. Additionally, when reading news about information provided by Mr. Shannon, it was clear that he had an amazing insight and credibility. Deleting this entry is senseless. Yonzie.
• Oppose Shannon was regularly quoted in The Register [4], published a book that went to 5 editions, was used for quotes in HP's press releases [5][6], was a director of major HP User Group Encompass [7] and seems to have been active a great deal in pre-web days (for which there are obviously no links). Also thanked in the credits for a comprehensive history of the DEC Alpha. --Amaccormack 17:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose WP:BIO is met in this case. The original nom could be applied to many other notable individuals; for example, Albert Einstein was only notable in the field of science. Shannon was known more in the print media than on the Internet; remember, the 'net isn't the only source of information. I also concur with the other oppose comments. --Joe Sewell 17:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup with additonal references. The individual is a technology author, and has at least one reliable source (Network World article), so it likely to be able to meet WP:RS, and WP:V -- Whpq 17:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As per WP:BIO, Shannon may not have been Bill Gates, but he was, at the time, a widely read, highly influential journalist and author. Granted, most of his contributions to technology journalism occurred when our over-zealous AfD experts were in diapers -- but his inclusion in Wikipedia is well within the established guidelines for notability. His publications are mostly pre-Web -- but the same could be said of Shakespeare. (Edited later to add): And just to give an idea of the perspective of Lefly, the main instigator of this deletion campaign, take a look at his own articles: numerous paeans to obscure rock bands no one's ever heard of, flop TV shows from 15 years ago, and totally inconsequential arts nonprofits. Compared to those subjects, Terry Shannon merits an encyclopedia of his own, never mind one page! User:info@kafalas.com

Lets try and discuss the merits of this article rather then attacking everyone who disagrees with you, it will not get you very far in an AfD. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As per WP:BIO, Let me add that Terry made a "difference" with a large number of us in the computing world, especially when DEC's star was shinning. That makes him notable to me. And to many others who may or may not read this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.36.62.139 (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Oppose The WP:BIO guidelines are met by his "Introduction to Vax/Vms" book, required reading for all VAX administrators and is not only currently listed on Amazon.com but it is also required reading in several CompSci courses for 2007 [8] and [9]. Additionally, in the WP:BIO guidelines it is clearly stated that there is no firm policy regarding this topic. The intent of the notability guidelines is to keep vanity pages from filling Wiki. It is clear that his contributions to the fields of computing, reporting, and publishing over more than two decades rise above the level of a vanity page. User:TOJMatt 17:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion Terry Shannon may not have been a household word, but if Wikipedia's editors should delete Shannon's entry, they should also delete commercial advertising entries for the Brit sandwich shop chain, Pret a Manger, as well as others like it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.74.41.252 (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced for WP:BIO. To the above user - please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Mind you, I've noticed the criticism (since reverted) that this user added to Pret a Manger so perhaps they've just had a bad sandwich. EliminatorJR 18:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. There are almost no sources. We must have sources. Period. -Amarkov moo! 18:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Amarkov: The sources have been removed by one or more vandals. For a complete list, please see this Permalink to verify the veracity of this vandalism claim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Discpad (talk • contribs) 19:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment - To those who are new here - Welcome. To those who have supplied sources - Thanks. To those who are new to the wikipedia deletion process, please be aware that a nomination for deletion is not a call to arms to delete an article but instaed is the beginning of a process intended to improve wikipedia's handling of a page of claims about a subject. The result varies among: redirect to another article, merge content into another article, improve the article, or sometimes to delete the article if no other choice makes sense. This process is working well here. Thanks again to everyone for helping. WAS 4.250 18:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - User:Leflyman is abusing his powers as stated previously and is condeming the whole of people editing as sockpuppets. I for one find this highly offensive and call for action.— 70.49.180.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment You can hardly blame him. At least two-thirds of the "Oppose" votes are from new accounts or anonymous IPs. If it's not sockpuppetry, it's certainly canvassing. The fact that most entries say "Oppose" rather than the usual "Keep" is notable.EliminatorJR 19:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion I see that the guidlines themselves are the subject of dissent so some care should be used in trying to apply them in sitautions like this. I note under special cases The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. In my own experience as a DEC customer dating from the 60s I have to say that was the case for Terry. He was a very important piece of the DEC user culture for many years, giving us all a look inside DEC that was otherwise not available to most of us and that allowing us to make better decisions. As to citations and the like, we should keep in mind that much of what he did was under a pseudonym. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.116.166.40 (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Oppose deletion I agree this article requires a complete rewrite. However, Terry Shannon was not "non notable". He was a legend in the DEC VAX/VMS world, and was generally seen as the industry source for insider knowledge of DEC, then Compaq, and later HP.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.69.224 (talk • contribs).

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.