Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Parker (MIT)


 * 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   Witdrawn (non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bill Parker (MIT)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There is a lack of sources to establish independent notability for Bill Parker, beyond his invention of the plasma lamp. I can find no non-trivial sources that would help expand the Parker article. He is notable only in relation to the plasma lamp (arguably a spiritual violation of WP:BIO1E, if not to the letter) and the information available is not sufficient to create a full, neutral biography on this individual. I suggested a merge/redirect but, as I was told, among other things, when attempting to discussing the merge, "Bill Parker is not a plasma lamp and is already mentioned in the plasma lamp article. Plasma lamp already contains everything that from the BP article that it needs to contain". I agree and "Bill Parker (MIT)" is not a likely search criterion for "plasma lamp" and "Bill Parker (disambiguation)" can easily direct people to the article if need be. Cheers, CP 02:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Withdraw Per new sources. Too bad they weren't present during the merge discussion; could have saved a lot of time. Cheers, CP 05:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral: I'd be of the opinion that designing the plasma lamp makes you notable, but if all sources are trivial, then he might not be that notable.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added many more sources; I think the exhibits at the Exploratorium and the MIT Museum (both of which seem permanent) are enough for WP:CREATIVE. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Seem to be quite a few sources. A retitle might be in order. And I'm still not certain the way to include this information wouldn't be to merge it with the lamp article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.