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 speedy keep. nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 04:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tryggve Fossum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Industry researcher at Intel. Seems to have some lead position there, but the only ref is from Intel. Appears to fail WP:BIO. I've removed some info that was not verified from that sole source. You may want to check the article's history. Pcap ping 04:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 04:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 04:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep provisionally. Appears to be highly distinguished computer hardware engineer working in industry. Intel Fellow. Is he IEEE fellow? GS cites give h index = 16 from patents so could pass WP:Prof #1. Some books. Input from IT people would be useful. I do not understand why nominator removed sourced material from article before nominating. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • The material I removed wasn't sourced. The reference had been added on top of existing material apparently without checking what it actually supported. Further, some IP user added more details that were also not found in the reference cited. I realize there may be a systemic bias against industry researchers, but as long as his NDAs keeps the info vague, there's not much we can do. Also, a h-index of 16 was deletable in the case of Setrag Khoshafian. Pcap ping 05:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says clearly on the Intel site that he worked on the VAX. You removed that statement. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

No, I did not. The Intel page says only "he was a consulting engineer and helped design several VAX processors", which I've added " now. The material I removed said "VAX 9000 and the VAX 8600", which is more precise, but unsourced for now. Pcap ping 06:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are actually references to VAX models he worked on out there (I found them earlier when searching for info but didn't make a note, sorry), so I think that bit should have been tagged ((cn)) rather than removed - I'll be happy to search for refs again myself if the consensus is to keep -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep provisionally. Is an Intel fellow [1] (though apparently not an IEEE fellow [2]), has patents [3], [4], [5], has papers published [6], [7], [8]. If he was a key designer of DEC's VAX range of computers, than that's a significant contribution to the industry. I think it's worth doing a bit more investigation into notability rather than deleting, and if established, perhaps expand with his areas of expertise based on those patents/papers etc? And maybe another AfD later if notability is still doubtful?</nowiki> -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • His role is rather vaguely defined in that source: "helped design" is not "key designer". Pcap ping 06:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, which is why I suggested further investigation rather than deletion -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fossum's exact role in the design of VAX computers can be determined from the papers on the VAX computers (which usually have a short section acknowledging the major contributors) and from his biographies published in the Digital Technical Journal. The relevant issues should be from 1986 and 1990. Unfortunately, I don't remember the exact dates. It should be noted that the DTJ sometimes republishes papers from IEEE publications, so its worth looking in those too. Rilak (talk) 17:38, 20 February 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.