Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Calvignac
From 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 No consensus, which defaults to keep. Keeper | 76 20:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jean Calvignac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Person is not notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (people). He was responsible for two IBM products, none of which was particularly successful. So what? EnOreg (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User Espresso Addict removed the prod tag from the article, remarking that: "patents & publication history might constitute notability." IMHO there are only very few patents that establish notability of their authors, like the invention of the DRAM cell. Calvignac has none of those. I'm also not aware of any breakthrough publications of his. --EnOreg (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep WP:BIO says is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. He has a number of patents in his name [1]; he has several publications [2], [3] although that one is a little sketchy, but that's coming from a non-professional POV; and [4]. Yngvarr 12:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- His own publications and patents are not secondary source material. That would have to be articles about him as a person. --EnOreg (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is valid, but I'm still of a mind to keep, so I am going to change to weak. Yngvarr 13:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- His own publications and patents are not secondary source material. That would have to be articles about him as a person. --EnOreg (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - per WP:BIO. I am not seeing reliable secondary sources. It seems like he should be notable, considering his accomplishments, but the lack of reliable secondary sources stands out too much.Gwynand (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO, not weak at all. There are how many millions of patents out there? (Heck, I've a deceased uncle who holds one.) Being a patent owner even of a famous invention provides zero notability beyond that invention, failing reliable secondary sources about the subject. Where are the sources about this fellow? RGTraynor 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete insufficiently notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Weak Delete - he is an IBM Fellow, but there is little coverage about him. He is mentioned in a few articles, but does not appear to be the subject of any of them. -- Whpq (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep IBM Fellow has always been considered to be notable, as a very high research position. "He holds more than 120 patents in the field of communication and networking and has published more than 90 papers or contributions for standards." That's why they made him a fellow--scientists are notable because of their science. The products he designed are very important also. There is a difference between holding a patent or two, and holding multiple patents for notable products. 211 items in Google Scholar. The most cited patents of his are cited by 53, 45, 33 others. That citing shows his recognition. the patents are sufficient even in the absence of bio details. There's a Forbes reference to show that the positions are real. More than enough. DGG (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is true that IBM Fellow is a very high recognition. However, that doesn't mean that all Fellows are notable. In this case I don't even see why they elected him. Patents have nothing to do with science -- they are about engineering. And like I said above, there are only very few patents that warrant notability while many others are trivial. Interestingly, the citation record of his scientific papers is rather poor. The only notable paper is only kind of a survey paper that was only published in an IBM journal and where he is only 5th author. What do you consider important about his products? --EnOreg (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First I've heard patents had noting to do with science. But if you class them in engineering, how does it make any difference? he's a notable engineer. I agree patents as such dont prove notability, but patents that are widely referenced do. And so do patents which, like these, are patents for important realized products. DGG (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, I don't see it. There is nothing in WP:BIO making a presumption of notability for an IBM Fellow or patent holders. Failing that, he has to clear the same bar as everyone else. Which criteria of WP:BIO does he meet, please? RGTraynor 21:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, if you don't know the difference then you're probably also not aware of the fundamental debate on the triviality of software patents. If his inventions were breakthroughs there would be scientific literature about it. But there is none! Moreover, there is still no evidence that his products were important. --EnOreg (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First I've heard patents had noting to do with science. But if you class them in engineering, how does it make any difference? he's a notable engineer. I agree patents as such dont prove notability, but patents that are widely referenced do. And so do patents which, like these, are patents for important realized products. DGG (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is true that IBM Fellow is a very high recognition. However, that doesn't mean that all Fellows are notable. In this case I don't even see why they elected him. Patents have nothing to do with science -- they are about engineering. And like I said above, there are only very few patents that warrant notability while many others are trivial. Interestingly, the citation record of his scientific papers is rather poor. The only notable paper is only kind of a survey paper that was only published in an IBM journal and where he is only 5th author. What do you consider important about his products? --EnOreg (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep someone who holds more 200 patents and is an IBM Fellow has a remarkably strong claim of notability, supported by available sources. It's a shame that Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which requires nominators to research potential claims of notability, and expand or merge articles as appropriate, has not been followed here. Alansohn (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, then you've done so, and have sources to contribute demonstrating notability. What are they, please? RGTraynor 04:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alansohn, according to the USPTO he actually holds "only" 124 patents. And there is still no evidence that any of these are notable. There are thousands of engineers who hold that many patents. I did search for proof of notability—it is just hard to find if there isn't any... --EnOreg (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't seen the "WP:DIDNTINVENTDRAM" policy nor seen any discussion of its validity as an excuse for deletion. Holding "only" 124 patents -- and you acknowledge you have the sources -- is a rather extremely strong claim of notability. Heck that's 123 more than RGTraynor's uncle. Of the seven million US patents issued to date, how many patent holders have "only" 124? Alansohn (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2008 (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.