Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Danzik


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dennis Danzik

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

This article came with an impressive list of external links (see this earlier revision for the whole list). I noticed that one link was dead, and tidied it up. On inspection, all the rest of the external links were variously to dead links, press releases, mere mentions in passing, and database entries, none of which appeared to meet the WP:RS criteria, and I have removed these too. Without these, I can't see that what remains passes the WP:BIO criteria. The Anome (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're confusing verifiability criteria with notability criteria. Notability required multiple non-trivial sources. An article mentioning a subject in passing or in a database can still be reliable even if the coverage isn't indepth. -- Mgm|(talk) 12:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should rephrase that. The links removed were either dead, not RS, or did not meet the BIO criteria. The patent listings are clearly reliable primary sources, but do not meet the BIO requirements. Otherwise, we would need to have an article on every person who had ever filed a patent. Similarly, press releases are not sufficient; anyone can have a press release distributed by any of the many release distribution services; they are not, in general, then fact-checked by their republishers. The person in question sounds quite interesting, and I'd happily support keeping the article if third-party sources that meet the WP:BIO criteria were available. Unfortunately, I can't see any evidence that they are. -- The Anome (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; no evidence of notability. Holding a patent does not make a person notable; there is no evidence that any of the patents are notable.  The Reuter's EL is a press release, and does not provide evidence that Danzik is notable.  &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep  &mdash; Patents, especially the first plastic lumber, and a new renewable liquid fuel source is groundbreaking and important work. Also growing Wiki support. Most link destruction was done by unknowns. This can be repaired. It is also impossible to know if the person saying "Delete" is unbiased and not "put forth" by someone with motive. NPSE links were removed, SPE links were removed. Totally unfair to other researchers looking for basis of information in olefin sciences and original inventions and ideas.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inventorssociety (talk • contribs) 10:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Growing Wiki support? If these patents are so groundbreaking and important, one would expect them to have been written about--but I can't find anything at all. In fact, the only hit I got through Google news was about the house the guy bought for $6 million. I am not sure exactly what links you're referring to above (or what's unfair about previous edits), and perhaps I am also guilty of what you call "link destruction"--since I removed the links to various databases that list patents, without a single explanation as to what those things are, or, more to the point, how they are important. If you want to save your guy, you need to find sources that pass muster to establish his notability (I let the Reuters-thing stand, even though it's a press release: you need better sources than that). Drmies (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I hope his inventions are successful and become notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: For the reasons above and he also does not seem to pass the Google test. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Anome: is a member of the Mormon "Church" and is tied to Mity Lite and has a hidden agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.101.58 (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Make it Easy: The substantial personal and corporate financial support that is provided will also be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.101.58 (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2009 (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.