Template:Did you know nominations/Tymshare RETRIEVE

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

RETRIEVE

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 16:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC).

  • Article is new-enough, long enough, hook is cited (see ref [38, 39, 40 41]). Neutrality is ok for me and the appeal to broad audience is a criterion I disagree with anyway. That said, the article is written in a way that is understandable enough. No image to review.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to promote this, but most of the article is sourced to user manuals, and Lulu.com is a self-published source which other editors have deleted from my articles. Yoninah (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Remove nom then. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah:I take that back. The hook is not sourced to either the manual or the Lulu link. The article is well-referenced otherwise, with eight separate sources. What DYK issue is the holdup? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not talking about the hook. The lead presents a subject that is clearly notable, then proceeds to cite user manuals, technical reports, and self-published sources for most of the information. Only Lammers and Walmsley appear to be independent secondary refs. I would like to suggest that you add some reliable sources so this doesn't get nominated for deletion. Yoninah (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: If Yoninah wishes to AfD this article, they are free to do so, of course. But what does that have to do with DYK? Is there a "maybe in the future AfD" DYK rule I didn't notice? I see no actionable items here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It already has them, it always did. Yoninah stated that in the note above. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what you meant by that since Yoninah was the one who raised concerns about the reliability of the sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Maury Markowitz:, I'm not going to speak for @Yoninah:, but if you want this to go forward, I think the sourcing in the article needs to be improved. --evrik (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, who am I to think otherwise? Fail away! Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I really don't know what else to say. The hook is is interesting, but I fail to see the sourcing. Author has been encouraged to improve citations, but doesn't want to help. --evrik (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Speaking as an uninvolved editor, I don't see what's wrong with using primary sources such as user manuals and technical reports to cite most of the article, or even the hook. But I do understand concerns about relying on them perhaps not being enough to establish notability. Maury, if only to allay concerns, I'd really advise to you to follow the advice given above and add more independent sources. It shouldn't be too difficult to do and will actually help improve the article. Also a courtesy ping to the original reviewer Iry-Hor to respond to the above discussion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Let's just close the nom. I wrote this because I had a couple of hours while my kid was napping, I don't have time or interest to do more work on it six weeks later. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • --evrik (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)