Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic Wand (software)
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 delete. (created a redirect to
]Magic Wand (software)
- )
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by
WP:PRIMARY, by individuals closely associated with the subject. Msnicki (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep: the combination of name and period of relevance makes searching for sources nearly impossible. Still the article is marked as stub and the claim of notability – source base of MS Word – makes me think that we should keep it perWP:IAR until either the claim is properly sourced or debunked. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If that were true, I think we'd be reporting that elsewhere, in articles that get far more scrutiny. From Microsoft Word#Origins and growth: 1981 to 1995: "In 1981, Microsoft hired Charles Simonyi, the primary developer of Bravo, the first GUI word processor, which was developed at Xerox PARC.[4] Simonyi started work on a word processor called Multi-Tool Word and soon hired Richard Brodie, a former Xerox intern, who became the primary software engineer." And from Richard Brodie (programmer)#Microsoft: "Simonyi hired Brodie in 1981 as Microsoft's 77th employee, and a founding member of the Microsoft Application Division. Brodie distinguished himself at Microsoft by creating the first version of Microsoft Word in less than seven months." Msnicki (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Interestingly, the information about possible connection between Word and Magic Wand was added twice to the article: on May 14, 2004 by Rossumcapek and (after being removed) on March 1, 2011 by LesPinter. Effectively, Les Pinter made this claim earlier (also see [1] and [2]). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If that were true, I think we'd be reporting that elsewhere, in articles that get far more scrutiny. From Microsoft Word#Origins and growth: 1981 to 1995: "In 1981, Microsoft hired Charles Simonyi, the primary developer of Bravo, the first GUI word processor, which was developed at Xerox PARC.[4] Simonyi started work on a word processor called Multi-Tool Word and soon hired Richard Brodie, a former Xerox intern, who became the primary software engineer." And from Richard Brodie (programmer)#Microsoft: "Simonyi hired Brodie in 1981 as Microsoft's 77th employee, and a founding member of the Microsoft Application Division. Brodie distinguished himself at Microsoft by creating the first version of Microsoft Word in less than seven months." Msnicki (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe Les Pinter's "presumption" that Magic Wand source ended up in Word. I suspect he just wishes that was true and also, that the story has grown in the retelling. Just like most people here, I'm anonymous and my personal experience isn't helpful except maybe to explain the other part of why I don't believe those claims: I visited Microsoft in late 1981 and met Gates and Simonyi, got a demo from Simonyi of their Word and Multiplan applications and got told the story that Word had been written by an intern they'd hired. The history being reported in the Microsoft Word and Richard Brodie (programmer) articles matches my own memories. Msnicki (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I wouldn't trust Microsoft people on this, the story of Les Pinter seems questionable to me too: the Word was developed for both Xenix and DOS (with former being the focus platform at that time IIRC), so using CP/M sources for that matter is weird. It looks more likely that Gates considered Magic Wand for release under Microsoft brand but decided in favor of a completely new product written from scratch. Anyway, I think that both the claim and the stub on this text processor should be kept for historical reasons. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold on, there. We both agree the source and the claim are completely dubious but you want to keep them anyway? Msnicki (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See, I'm not convinced that the whole story is fake; in fact I tend to believe that there was some kind of deal between Les Pinter and Gates, and if so, it may be worth mention in History of Microsoft Word once some more reliable source reports this. This article may be kept as a mean of preservation of that data, though I wouldn't insist in that. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't doubt that Pinter made the deal he says. I doubt just his "presumption" that it ended up in Word. Msnicki (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See, I'm not convinced that the whole story is fake; in fact I tend to believe that there was some kind of deal between Les Pinter and Gates, and if so, it may be worth mention in History of Microsoft Word once some more reliable source reports this. This article may be kept as a mean of preservation of that data, though I wouldn't insist in that. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold on, there. We both agree the source and the claim are completely dubious but you want to keep them anyway? Msnicki (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I wouldn't trust Microsoft people on this, the story of Les Pinter seems questionable to me too: the Word was developed for both Xenix and DOS (with former being the focus platform at that time IIRC), so using CP/M sources for that matter is weird. It looks more likely that Gates considered Magic Wand for release under Microsoft brand but decided in favor of a completely new product written from scratch. Anyway, I think that both the claim and the stub on this text processor should be kept for historical reasons. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe Les Pinter's "presumption" that Magic Wand source ended up in Word. I suspect he just wishes that was true and also, that the story has grown in the retelling. Just like most people here, I'm anonymous and my personal experience isn't helpful except maybe to explain the other part of why I don't believe those claims: I visited Microsoft in late 1981 and met Gates and Simonyi, got a demo from Simonyi of their Word and Multiplan applications and got told the story that Word had been written by an intern they'd hired. The history being reported in the Microsoft Word and Richard Brodie (programmer) articles matches my own memories. Msnicki (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the only goal mention this fact is showing the Microsoft's moves towards own text processor (or office suit). Any claim about succession between Magic Wand and Word can't stand
]- How would you feel about merging into the Microsoft Word article? Merge is always an alternative. Msnicki (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm OK with merge, though I'm not sure that the sources may be considered reliable for Microsoft Word or History of Microsoft Word (which is a better target IMO): here these sources are primary, while there they are just self-posted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability is borderline. If the article is merged or kept, it needs to be rewritten with reliable sources. Keeping dubious unsourced speculation is unacceptable. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as I failed to find any reliable sources discussing Magic Wand at least somehow, and the only fact from the article which might be worth mention is supposed to go to Microsoft Word-related article, I change my !vote to delete. I reported the Les Pinter's statement at talk:History of Microsoft Word § Magic Wand. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2012 (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.