Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doyle Doss


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Doyle Doss

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable living biography


 * (1) Using the criteria: (quoting from Wikipedia Notability page) "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.... In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual."
 * (2) WP:RS The only reliable source cited is a New York Times article. The RV site is advertising and the gadget site is a fan-site compilation, similar to roadgeek sites; both are unreliable sources. I searched google news, book, scholar and web but have found only one other reliable source, apparently written from the same press release as used by the New York Times writer as it contains essentially the same information. This article uses the same photo and youtube link as elsewhere showing that the pictures were circulated to the media, not taken individually by the media themselves.  On the NYT page, the photo is sourced to "Doyle Doss".  The North Coast Journal story is merely that the invention was featured in the NYT article, it contributes nothing new.
 * (3) WP:N Although the article in the NYT is a thorough article about him and his work, there is a lack of significant coverage in the media. He was a 15-minute-wonder 2 years ago, not of lasting notability. He has no awards, I find no patents or patent applications at the US Government patent office, nor do these articles say he has any, and his company name shows in no local business or telephone directories. The topic is not important enough to merge with any other article.  I have read the article's talk page and history pages. There are no interlanguage links, although the page appears in Russian Wiki it is identical to the English version. I do not believe the article can be fixed instead of deleting because the subject is non-notable. The only non-user talk pages in Wiki to which the page links are:
 * (a) a redirect page and
 * (b) Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108 03 ‎ (links) where it appears as "not yet reviewed" from 2011 "N Doyle Doss: (4 edits, 4 major, +824) (+227)(+172)(+329)(+824)"

Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Mildly Oppose Notable enough to be written up in the New York Times. I would admit he's no Ron Popeil or Thomas Edison, but he achieved some level of notability. The NY Times article does not appear to be a press release to me. He may be a fifteen minute wonder, and WP:Crystal. But I see no evidence of self promotion. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎)
 * The NYT article says "“Innovation and invention in America are not dead,” wrote Mr. Doss, 62, in an e-mail that included links to YouTube videos that he said proved his point. In them, hummingbirds hovered two inches above people’s nostrils, sticking their beaks into the red, vaguely frightening masks."" Hence the article was written because of material sent by Mr. Doss, thereby failing the filter " and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity," above. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete As the NYT and the Home and Garden articles are virtually identical, and the picture on the NYT article is credited to the subject of the article, I highly suspect these articles were written off a press release and hence not WP:RS. And there seems to be nothing else to be found, so it fails WP:GNG. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 16.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  21:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you are pointing to. I think that anybody who makes it into the pages of the NY Times has more notability than me. He didn't pay for the space. Whether that is enough or not I leave to you or others.  Good luck.
 * Somebody says he "doesn't have any patents". That should be verifiable, and the proponent of that affirmative statement should be able to tell us a check has been made.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also add that there are now at least five seven independent sources. Perhaps you don't like the Seattle Post or the Los Angeles Times. Your google search seems to have missed some items.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Seattle Post Intelligencer or the Los Angeles Times are the same story, the Post picked it up from the Times. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It does, however, indicate a wider geographic interest than if it had simply appeared in the Times. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment All of the new sources are about the hummingbird feeder gizmo. I can see where that gizmo might be notable, but I still don't see it for the guy. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The news stories span 7 years so I don't see how you can claim this guy is a flash in the pan. Here's more coverage of the candle heater. The AOL News and Los Angeles Times articles are similar but not identical, and there's more. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable biography. Not enough coverage in reliable sources, the same story was picked up by the papers. As a biography it doesn't appear notable.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  11:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I believe sufficent sourcing has been included to pass the relevant notability guidelines. That said, it might be worth considering renaming/rescoping the article to Doss Products, but that can be done through the normal processes. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep without prejudice to later renaming to Doss Products, I believe the existing sources evidence notability under [{WP:GNG]].  --j⚛e deckertalk 19:50, 25 January 2013 (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.