Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shell account

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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shell account

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

Delete - This article has no reliable sources as references and disputed external links, notability is questionable. --Hm2k (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per obvious notability. The sources are more than adequate to cover this, and the only ones who would dispute these links are those who get involved in anti-"insert OS here" wars.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into shell (computing). The topics are inseparable, and shell (computing) is currently little more than a list. I'm not sure whether shell accounts are independently notable, but they're clearly an important aspect of the broader topic. (Incidentally, I note that user account is a redirect to user (computing) rather than a distinct article.) EALacey (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite. According to better informed users, this is a major historical means of Internet access, something not indicated by the current article. EALacey (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into shell (computing) per EALacey. Excellent suggestion, saves this article's useful content. ReverendWayne (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Two reliable sources have been added to the article since the AfD was initiated and sources are not lacking for this topic. The AfD nomination by Hm2k is a violation of WP:POINT and is clearly a case of WP:REICHSTAG. This is a continuation of the ongoing disruption [1] by Hm2k with this article and its talk page and it appears to be a reaction to the RFC not going in his favour. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I presume nobody is questioning that the phrase "shell account" is used in the computing literature. Without intending to take a side in any running dispute, I can't see how the added references demonstrate any more than that. EALacey (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Tothwolf, assume good faith. I expect the outcome will benefit us both. --Hm2k (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You do realise that is just wikipedia humor, don't you? Are you trying to be funny or did you mistake it for policy? --Hm2k (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Read WP:NPA. Both of you.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        We've already had this discussion, Tothwolf has a quite a history of bad faith. It gets tiresome constantly trying to defuse the situation when you're constantly under attack. Yet none of this belongs here. Issues with behavior belong in user talk. --Hm2k (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        ...and that right there is a personal attack. As you are well aware, the history you claim is not accurate and I've already brought this to the attention to the editor who created it. I've yet to see you defuse anything related to Shell account and the edit histories of the article and talk page make it quite clear that you continued to instigate arguments and conflicts with the editors involved. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hm2k, I assure you that climbing the Reichstag is no joke. It is a Wikipedia neologism that represents the absolute pinnacle of a dispute. You've clearly reached that point; edit warring on the article itself, [2] the talk page, [3] edit warring over the {{3O}} template and then changing the 3O request, [4] removing references, edit warring over the RFC, trying to add false logic and loaded wording in the RFC, and when none of that worked to your advantage, you initiated an AfD for the article itself. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Tothwolf, your constant accusations are getting boring now. If you have a problem with my behaviour, use the user talk page or report me to an admin. Discussing it here is inappropriate and simply disruptive. Stop this dickery. I will not be engaging you on this matter here any further. --Hm2k (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:Duck --Tothwolf (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a basic type of internet account, and the standard type of internet access account preceding the establishment of always-on internet accounts. How could it not be notable? 76.66.193.221 (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- None of the references detail what a "shell account" actually is. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. (WP:GNG) --Hm2k (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The concept of getting a shell account to access the internet via telnet is strangely alien in a Microsoft/GUI broadband world (see this howto). A merge may be possible but I think there is rather more to be said than defining the words. If the article were expanded to explain how people used shell accounts as part of the environment of the 1970s text driven "internet", scientific forums, early MUDs, BBSs, the beginnings of international social networking and how people chose shell accounts in the 1990s as they were the only form of internet access without hourly charges; then it would be easy to see why this article is notable and not quite just a sub-topic of shell (computing). As for sources, they are there, you just need to check through rather early computer enthusiast magazines. Damn, now I feel old.—Ash (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(source) Here is an article from Linux Journal in 1994 where Johnson, the editor of Linux Journal, shops for an ISP who can provide a shell account.

(source) 1994 again and here is a TidBITS article which reviews a possible funky new graphical replacement for shell accounts called The Internet Adapter; within a couple of years, it too was gone.—Ash (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ash, It seems your sources mention the legacy usage, something that is not even mentioned in the article. These sources are not suitable for the current content. I recommend you look at adding new content to support your sources. --Hm2k (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had completely forgotten about TIA and it most certainly deserves mention here. I remember trying it out and finding that I preferred the simplicity of the open source program SLiRP (which even though SLiRP was very important software historically, it too is currently lacking an article). --Tothwolf (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that a merge is a more likely candidate over keep. There's a different between the legacy usage of shell accounts provided by ISPs and modern usage which mainly consists of running background processes for bots and bouncers. However, you'll agree that neither have enough reliable sources at the moment to say which is right for this article. I'm unable to find anything conclusive that describes exactly what a shell account is, legacy or modern. --Hm2k (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's interesting because I continue to find lots of valid references. For example: Los Angeles Times: Core Fans of Shell Accounts Mourn Netcom's Demise We actually should have a section on Netcom's shell system netcom.netcom.com since this was one of, if not the first, commercial ISP to offer shell accounts to the general public. IIRC, those systems were SunOS 4.1.4_U1. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obsolete does not equal non-notable. If there are two different topics involved, the article should be split. DGG (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article could use some elaboration, that does not mean it is not notable. Shell accounts have a very long and large history. There are many references to shell accounts in reliable sources, such as the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. If the subject is notable enough to be casually referenced in two of the largest news papers of the United States, I would think it is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. It just needs to be researched and expanded on. The problem with referencing this topic is that shell accounts have not been in widespread usage in about 15 years. Less than 5 minutes of Google searches produced a number of links to useful articles which could be used. If you wish to improve the article as you state on the talk page I recommend taking the time to actually do so, adding references and external links rather than just removing invalid ones. Recommending the article for deletion does not seem appropriate. Iarann (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You'll notice the sources provided don't mention shell accounts in the same context of the article (ie: no mention of the legacy service provided by ISPs in the article and no mention of the modern IRC usage in the sources). That is why "5 minutes of Google searches" isn't always the best approach, because although it contains the right words it might not be appropriate to the article. Deletion would be the best way to prompt a rewrite. An AfD request has other benefits too including prompting the improvement of the article so that your "keep" is justified. My view is that there is no point disputing external links if the article is completely pointless. Note: I added the 2 original references, when there was previously none and added the current external links. Improvement is the aim of the game here. --Hm2k (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I read both those articles, and maybe you should too. They both reference shell accounts in the way defined in this article. In the New York Times article, the author casually mentions his provider wished him to no longer use his shell account, and in the LA Times article it discusses how those with shell accounts with miss the provider they were using. The first article only casually mentions the author using a shell account, but does not describe it, the second article does give an actual description. They both mention shell accounts in the "legacy" way described by the article, so I'm not sure what your point is. I wasn't using them as examples of sources, I was using them as examples of how popular it was in the early internet days. You can also find plenty of references to how they are now used for IRC bots or hacker/cracker purposes, but I don't feel a need to drive this into the ground. I stated keep and gave examples and evidence for that. I have no intention of rewriting the article myself but I would not like to see it deleted either. Your usage of recomending the article for deletetion specifically goes against the whole point of the deletion policy. To quote WP:AfD and WP:Deletion policy: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Iarann (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the use of AFD to "encourage a re-write" and I disagree that "deletion" can lead to a better article. If an article is deleted, then anybody who tries to write a new version will see a notice that the article has been deleted and might be discouraged from continuing. Even if a new article is created, there will be the specter of a G4 hanging over it if deleted via AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am aware of the contents of the sources I have provided and yes, one does indeed mention legacy usage, however it was the best I could find. I realise now that they aren't really suitable, which puts the whole article under question for notability, if it's so difficult to find suitable sources how can it be notable? Perhaps my reason for AfD is not suitable, however the outcome would establish whether it was worth improving further or not. I get the impression it is. --Hm2k (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This is a basic part of many operating systems. Maybe it needs better sourcing, but it is clearly notable. Bradybd (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(clarification) An operating system shell (a piece of software) is not the same thing as a shell account (a personal access account).—Ash (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is an important part of the Unix/Posix system, and it is proper to have its own entry established inside wikipedia. Unresolved personal disputes from some article maintainers, shouldn't affect its overall value. -- Prunk (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it's a very widely used technology of historical, current and continuing importance. It seems counterproductive to remove a factually accurate article without a very good reason. Possibly needs better sources. -- Franki-macha (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's clear there is confusion over what a shell account actually is, possibly due to the poor information in the article and lack of reliable source to support it. If this article is not deleted, a rewrite would be required. Alternatively I would propose a merge with shell (computing) to help with clarification. --Hm2k (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A shell account was the primary way most people accessed the Internet before Dialup SLIP/PPP became widespread in the late 90s. Early ISPs such as Panix and Netcom offered these before they offered PPP --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sure, but this article has no mention of this legacy usage. --Hm2k (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment WP:SOFIXIT --Tothwolf (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2009 (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.