Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall Hyde

: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, apparently meets the requirements of WP:AUTHOR, so people say. An assembler, and for Coleco Adam too? Now there's a blast from the past. Things just ain't like what they used to be, thankfully. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

=[[Randall Hyde]]=

:{{la|Randall Hyde}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall Hyde}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Randall Hyde}})

Seems to fail WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Unreferenced. Pcap ping 09:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. GS cites 38, 25, 17, 21, 5 h index = 5. Not at wp:Prof #1 yet. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC).
  • Delete or Merge. There are no reliable sources covering him. For those searching, he goes by "Randy Hyde". If the Lazer's Interactive Symbolic Assembler article is kept, then this article should be merged to it. -- Whpq (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lazer's Interactive Symbolic Assembler was withdrawn by the nominator. As such, I think merging some of this material there would be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • We also have High Level Assembly from him. But what exactly do you propose we merge? This bio article mentions the two products followed by his academic resumé, which has little relevance to either article. The HAL article already says "it was originally conceived as a tool to teach assembly language programming at the college/university level." Perhaps we can add at which universities, but that's about it. Pcap ping 15:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, information about his specialty being assemblers and compilers as part of a mini bio included in the Lisa or HAL article wouldn't be irrelevant. I'm not advocating taking the entire article and dumping it in as a section. If others feel HAL would be a better placement for the information, I wouldn't object. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep (do not merge). Several notable accomplishments that should be kept in one bio, not scattered over articles for various software (with links form software articles to bio, of course). LotLE×talk 19:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added several references (please check to see if further citations are needed). Notable in history of computing. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • We obviously have different opinion on WP:GNG because all of those are the usual short blurbs either from within articles he had written, e.g. for Dr Dobb's, [http://www.drdobbs.com/184408724] or catalog author entries, e.g. on O'Reilly's web site. [http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/1331] I don't think that just about everyone that wrote an O'Reilly book qualifies by the current WP:AUTHOR guidelines. I don't see any source saying he is notable in the history of computing; this seems to be your opinion. Pcap ping 06:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I said that poorly! Yes, notability still needs to be established. I added citations verifying portions of the text, not citations explicitly supporting my opinion that he's notable. I thought this was worth mentioning because "Unreferenced" is part of the nomination. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification. I struck that part of the nomination. Good job adding references. Pcap ping 18:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per Xxanthippe. JBsupreme (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added some more of his accomplishments to the article, could you please take another look? Hyde was involved with several early consumer computer systems, and founded a company which put out software for several of these systems. He was also a programmer on a game released by Warner Brothers. Everything pre-'90's is a bit hard to source online so please take a look at the sources and comment on anything that need re-sourcing. It could also use some copyediting! :) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, the additions are all about software he wrote for the Coleco ADAM while running Lazerware (which also produced the Lisa assembler, but that info was already in the article). I'm not sure how this changes the picture. It requires judgment that his works qualify for WP:AUTHOR, but I don't see the references saying that his software was a significant innovation in some way. HLA is somewhat unique in design, but not really successful. YMMV. Pcap ping 22:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep or Merge. May qualify as author. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC).
  • Keep Xxanthippe is right: qualifies as author, not under WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, seems to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Nsk92 (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2010 (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.