Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SDF Public Access Unix Network

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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SDF Public Access Unix Network

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

Article deprodded by an IP without comment or improvement. My original concern was "Fails WP:ORG lacking independent coverage in reliable sources." Pcap ping 08:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SDF is a public Unix server that has been online for some 23 years. That alone is notable. If you are concerned about independent verification, I suggest the following Google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=SDF+lonestar+unix&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Perhaps some of these links should make it into the article, but this makes the case for improving the article, not deleting it. I vote to keep the article. User Pcap, I also petition you to remove your deletion tag. Thank you. 152.5.254.24 (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I strongly object to the deletion of this article. As I'll argue below, this active, 23-year-old organization with over 30,000 registered users is notable per WP:ORG. As such, rather than advocating for its removal, a more constructive activity would be to help improve the article.

I think part of the disagreement here, and the difficulty in establishing notability via sources easily accessed via the web, is due to the fact that Wikipedia is clearly a web-oriented community while SDF is a community built around a text-based UNIX system. The vast majority of content generated by SDF users is accessed via the shell, or other means, rather than via a web browser. Unfortunately, it appears that the set of SDF users and the set of registered Wikipedia users are almost completely disjoint.

In any case, I believe that SDF meets the WP:ORG notability standards, as per the following paragraph:

When evaluating the notability of organizations, please
consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring
larger organizations.

Now, being a small organization, relatively speaking, it is highly unlikely that SDF will ever be the subject of an article in The New York Times. As the policy suggests, that doesn't mean it hasn't had significant, demonstrable effects on education, culture, etc.

Some contributions to culture, society, education, etc.:

SDF was originally a bulletin board system (BBS), part of a social phenomenon that started in the late 70's. There are very few remaining active BBS's today and thus SDF is an important, living part of computing history. SDF's founder, Stephen Jones, was interviewed in BBS: The Documentary: http://bbsdocumentary.dreamhost.com/photos/117jones/index.html (culture).
SDF provides hands-on education about UNIX by providing free shell accounts with online and interactive help (education).
SDF users have collaborated to create a series of UNIX tutorials which are made available on the web: http://sdf.org/?tutorials (education).
There are over 3300 individual websites hosted on SDF, many of which are surely "notable" themselves: http://sdf.org/index.cgi?sites/freeshell.org (culture, society).
The SDF community contains a large number of blind users, who find the simple, plain text interface of a Unix system to be an effective way to work, learn, and communicate (see Screen reader) (society).
SDF is one of the few remaining Gopher sites: gopher://sdf.lonestar.org (culture).
SDF participates in the Vintage Computer Festival: http://www.vintage.org/2004/main/exhibit.php, http://www.vintage.org/2007/main/exhibit.php (culture).
SDF has produced a number of music compilations: http://sdf.lonestar.org/index.cgi?tour (culture).

Some independent sources:

BBS: The Documentary
bsdtalk interview: http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/2006/03/bsdtalk021-interview-with-stephen.html
Presentation about SDF to the Danbury Area Computer Society: http://www.dacs.org/pdf/sdf_presentation_to_dacs.pdf
List of public access UNIX systems from the TELCOM Digest archives (March 29, 1993): http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/archives/public.access/unix.public.access.sites
An article on slashdot.org about a DDOS attack on SDF in 2003: http://yro.slashdot.org/bsd/03/02/01/1339259.shtml?tid=122
List of free shell account providers on the net: http://shells.red-pill.eu/

Also, as an aside, the title should probably be changed to "SDF Public Access Unix System," where the last word is System instead of Network. That string will recover many more sources. Jason Blevins 21:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.178.9.182 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Please mind the elders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.113.55 (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2010 (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.