Talk:Victor Poor

Nomination for deletion

I nominated this article for deletion on 8/17/12. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do not delete this article. Though I knew Victor Poor personally, he is a well known inventor and important contributor to the history of computers. Please reference the oral history taken by The Computer Museum. The article needs to be expanded and edited, and hopefully many will contribute as word spreads of his death today. Please keep the article for now in the hopes that it will be revised and improved in the coming days and weeks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenieamalfitano (talk • contribs) 02:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

the reason this article probably got listed for deletion was that the openning paragraph (the abstract) did not make a successful case for notability - I have made changes to imply such notability--68.231.15.56 (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say that Victor Poor made a substantial contribution to the progress of computer technology as we know it today. I would vote to keep (and expand) this article. Sgw1009 (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC) sgw1009

• 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)

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) 16:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Victor Poor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080814215757/http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articleId=9111341 to http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articleId=9111341

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)