Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Poor

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The result was Nomination Withdrawn Go Phightins! (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Poor

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

seems to be written about oneself or close friend, doesn't establish notability or subject importance... Go Phightins! (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While this article is brief, as the reporter who wrote the article cited from Florida Today, a reputable Gannett daily newspaper, I can vouch for its accuracy. Victor Poor is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, as justified by his place in our newspaper, the oral history produced by the Computer History Museum, and an obituary planned by The New York Times. While the article should be edited and lengthened, deleting it would be a disservice to a man who made significant contributions to technology that made Wikipedia itself possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.109.4 (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep - seems to be able to verify this person's notability, although the actual article needs straightening out. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - re-written (one saved by HighBeam). I wonder if the nominator actually read the included references fully, or even did a quick check of the search engines before nominating? Fascinating and pioneering gentleman (in the full nature of the word), who easily passes WP:NOTABILITY. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article now has references to show notability.--Racklever (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the time when I nominated it, it was very mundane and it definitely has improved...it was nearly impossible to garner almost anything other than that, as was said, the nominator knew the person. I did, by the way google him, and there was the Florida Today article, which has been cited...apparently the author of that article also wrote this one according to his talk page, and there were a few more scattered articles from what I'm not sure I would consider reputable sites (e.g., www.winlink.org/node/1). Now that there is somewhat of a basis for keeping the article, I would withdraw my nomination, thanks to the work of Trident13. Go Phightins! (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is an unimpressive article. Creation immediately after his death feels too much like trying to do an end-run around BLP. Its accuracy is also questionable: his claimed involvement with the crucially important Intel 4004 matches no history of the 4004 that I've ever read. His involvement with Datapoint is though, and also at least some influence (if not involvement) on the equally important 8008 (that alone reaches WP:N).

However this article has problems with some fairly big claims that it makes: If the 2200 depended on Poor's development of an 8008-based instruction set, then how did the first generation 2200s manage to use a TTL-based architecture instead, without the 8008 yet being available? The claim "Datapoint remained one generation ahead of Intel until the 80286." is just nonsense - Datapoint built terminals, Intel built chips, so they were never even in competition. Besides which, Datapoint were always (AFAIK) loyal to Intel as a CPU source. Nor did Intel gain any major advantage over any other architecture with their 80286 (as they could be said to with the 8086 or 80386). Likewise " after they had lost their technical microchip lead to IBM " Datapoint weren't chip designers and nor were IBM (in this field at least), both were riding upon the Intel architecture. Now IBM did manage to beat everyonewith the PC in the early '80s, but this was never because of the Intel 8088 chip chosen, which wasn't even seen as the best chip available at the time. This article also both describes Poor as working with an "amateur radio colleague" in the early days and also claims that he only took up amateur radio after semi-retirement to his boat. So which is it? This whole article feels as if it was written by someone not entirely familiar with either Poor, nor the technologies he worked upon.

Work is seriously needed here, although I'm sure that newspaper and IEEE Spectrum obits will be forthcoming as useful sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - does this article now pass WP:NOTAB? Yes. But does it suffer from a series of conflicts associated with the current timeline of the development of microprocessor? Yes. In part that's because the associated articles and external references that we have access to claim that a series of people invented it: Ted Hoff and Stanley Mazor in 1969, to the major physical/chemical breakthrough of Federico Faggin in 1971. The only thing I can make out so far, is that in 1969 the Datapoint 3300 RTTY was blowing up TI chips every 30mins, to that in 1973+ the microprocessor was invented by a team mainly in Intel and the 2200 was reliable and selling like hot cakes. Should we be surprised by this confusion? No, like any invention if you tell the story from one person's perspective, then you'll get a different answer. When the underlying ref's disagree, I am not surprised by our current article confusion. But Poor does have a significant contribution in there, and as that's referenceable he passes WP:NOTAB and deserves an article. I'd suggest that a work group within a Project takes this problem away, and as their first task creates a consistent timeline. Until you have, you have conflict and confusion and nothing encyclopedic. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The man designed the instruction set that still lives on in most computers people use. He is the father of an HF-radio email system which is in current use by amateur radio operators and the military - for which he has won awards. There is no doubt that he has made significant and lasting contributions. Cmcguinness (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2012 (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.