Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George McConnell Davison


 * 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. L Faraone  23:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

George McConnell Davison

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The page is WP:Self published source, according to at least two users besides me, on the talk page. It is being used as an advertisement to portray him and his company with what the court has not allowed them. See court halts bogus claims and see former version of Davison Design & Development (before my latest edits) and compare with current one. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

- as stated above פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: AfD nomination implies deletion—no need for a separate bullet. czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't it a little disingenuous to be agreeing with yourself? GDallimore (Talk) 01:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge with Davison Design & Development. It's pretty borderline as there are some good sources in the article, but they really only talk about Davison in connection with his company and not as an individual. Note that the nominator revisits this group of pages at intervals and attempts to push a thoroughly negative (although largely deserved!) POV. I've taken a firm position now and in the past and tried to maintain a sense of balance, but anyone who see this nomination and wants to have a go at further balancing these articles as part of a delete/merge discussion is welcome to. GDallimore (Talk) 01:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

As the article's creator, I disagree with the proposed deletion, and I disagree that the article is "self-promotion"--any more than any biography of a living person is self-promotion. Per the procedures for objecting to a proposed deletion I will remove the "proposed deletion" tag from the article. Here and on the Davison article's Talk page, I offer my reasoning for keeping the biography as its own page, according to the Wikipedia Notability guidelines for People: 1) Davison is "worthy of notice" as founder and CEO of an American business with 250 employees; 2) he meets the basic criteria of being the subject of multiple published, independent sources (media), including a book about inventors; as additional criteria, he has made a recognized contribution that is part of the record of his industry as a) a patent-holder of at least eight patents, and b) an invited member of the Popular Mechanics "Brain Trust" roundtable; and 3) as a local Pittsburgh philanthropist. The article was also reviewed and accepted per the Wikipedia procedures for article creation and submission. --Christi212Cassidy (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * comment As the creator of the article, please would you explain (a) where any of the above is part of the notability guidelines (except for being the subject of multiple sources) and (b) which of the independent sources give him, rather than his business, substantial coverge. That it came through "Articles for creation" is not a valid reason for keeping. Vague generalisations about article content contribute nothing to a discussion - try to address the notability guidelines specifically. GDallimore (Talk) 16:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * comment As the creator of the article who believes the article should not be deleted, I am trying to address the notability guidelines specifically. I will do so again.

Per the Wikipedia guidelines for notability, people, I offer these specifics, referencing the original text of the notability guidelines, in defense of keeping and not deleting this article about George McConnell Davison:


 * 1) Davison is "worthy of notice" as founder and CEO of an American business with 250 employees and as the designer of Inventionland. From the first paragraph of the notability article: "For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary."
 * 2) As acknowledged, Davison meets the basic criteria of being the subject of multiple published, independent sources (media), including a book about inventors. From the "basic criteria": "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]"
 * 3) As additional criteria, he has made a recognized contribution that is part of the record of his industry as a) a patent-holder of at least eight patents, each patent in his own name held alone or jointly with others, and b) an invited member of the Popular Mechanics "Brain Trust" roundtable. From "additional criteria": "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[7]"
 * 4) Davison is a recognized local Pittsburgh philanthropist, which also makes him "worthy of notice."
 * 5) In addition, I would point to the fact he was named in an FTC lawsuit that arguably changed the invention promotion industry is also "worthy of notice."
 * 1) Davison is a recognized local Pittsburgh philanthropist, which also makes him "worthy of notice."
 * 2) In addition, I would point to the fact he was named in an FTC lawsuit that arguably changed the invention promotion industry is also "worthy of notice."
 * 1) In addition, I would point to the fact he was named in an FTC lawsuit that arguably changed the invention promotion industry is also "worthy of notice."
 * 1) In addition, I would point to the fact he was named in an FTC lawsuit that arguably changed the invention promotion industry is also "worthy of notice."

To answer the question of "which of the independent sources give him, rather than his business, substantial coverage," here are several sources:

Christi212Cassidy (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) “Make Sure You Aren’t the Only One Who Thinks It’s a Good Idea: Davison’s Volcanic Popcorn Maker,” Edison’s Concrete Piano: Flying Tanks, Six-Nippled Sheep, Walk-on-Water Shoes, and 12 Other Flops from Great Inventors by Judy Wearing (ECW Press, 2009) http://www.concretepiano.com/davison%20sample.pdf
 * 2) "The World of Tomorrow," Popular Mechanics, December, 2012, pp. 75-77.
 * 3) "Inventor George Davison Tells Parents Why They Should Encourage Their Kids to Invent," The Staten Island Family, October 2, 2012. http://www.thestatenislandfamily.com/inventor-george-m-davison-tells-parents-why-they-should-encourage-their-kids-to-invent/
 * 4) "Creative Genius," by J. Michael Krivyanski, Entrepreneur, January 1, 2008.  http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/187596. This short article does, I believe, point to Davison's leadership/management style and innovation with the development of Inventionland.
 * 1) "Inventor George Davison Tells Parents Why They Should Encourage Their Kids to Invent," The Staten Island Family, October 2, 2012. http://www.thestatenislandfamily.com/inventor-george-m-davison-tells-parents-why-they-should-encourage-their-kids-to-invent/
 * 2) "Creative Genius," by J. Michael Krivyanski, Entrepreneur, January 1, 2008.  http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/187596. This short article does, I believe, point to Davison's leadership/management style and innovation with the development of Inventionland.
 * 1) "Creative Genius," by J. Michael Krivyanski, Entrepreneur, January 1, 2008.  http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/187596. This short article does, I believe, point to Davison's leadership/management style and innovation with the development of Inventionland.


 * "Edison’s Concrete Piano" appear reliable and substantial. "The World of Tomorrow" is cited as being an op-ed piece BY Davison, not being about Davison. The Staten Island Family is a blog, not reliable. "Creative Genius" is a three paragraph piece about his company. In short, we have one suitable source. GDallimore (Talk) 20:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional Source Information

Thank you for acknowledging Davison's inclusion in Edison's Concrete Piano, and for the opportunity to dig deeper into my sources. One by one, here are clarifications and arguments for maintaining this article about George McConnell Davison: Christi212Cassidy (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) "Into the Future: How PopMech Predicted the Next 110 Years" by Popular Mechanics Editor-in-Chief Jim Meigs, December 2012. . A description of the "PM Brain Trust," methodology and reasoning behind the special "Into the Future" issue of Popular Mechanics. Meigs introduces the 22 members of the brain trust, who include Esther Dyson; John Maeda, the president of the Rhode Island School of Design; Annalee Newitz, the editor-in-chief of io9; and other academics, entrepreneurs and scientists who formed their "team of experts." This citation has been added to the "Industry Participation" section of the article George McConnell Davison.
 * 2) The Staten Island Family is a blog written by Melissa Chapman, a professional "mom" and former "Kids in the City" columnist for the Staten Island Advance from 2007 - 2011. The blog is part of the Lifetime (TV network) "Lifetime Moms" blog network; she has appeared as an expert on local media, including Fox & Friends TV show. This blog is not self-published; the article featuring George Davison maintained a neutral point of view and addressed the blog writer's audience. From Wikipedia's Verifiability page: "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.[7]"
 * 3) I respectfully disagree with you about "Creative Genius," the Entrepreneur magazine article by J. Michael Krivyanski. As I mentioned earlier, this is a short piece that points to Davison as a creative manager and leader, as well as the impetus behind Inventionland. Entrepreneur magazine, with a circulation over 600,000, is about entrepreneurs, people who have formed their own companies, and small-business management. George Davison is an entrepreneur who founded his own company. This article is about Davison as a manager and leader. Quote from the article to support my assertion: "George M. Davison, founder of the Pittsburgh-area product design company, created Inventionland to get his employees out of their cubicles and into a place that inspires creativity."
 * 4) The subject of the article holds eight patents in his own name, solely or jointly, thus warranting the title of inventor as well as CEO and founder of his company.
 * 1) I respectfully disagree with you about "Creative Genius," the Entrepreneur magazine article by J. Michael Krivyanski. As I mentioned earlier, this is a short piece that points to Davison as a creative manager and leader, as well as the impetus behind Inventionland. Entrepreneur magazine, with a circulation over 600,000, is about entrepreneurs, people who have formed their own companies, and small-business management. George Davison is an entrepreneur who founded his own company. This article is about Davison as a manager and leader. Quote from the article to support my assertion: "George M. Davison, founder of the Pittsburgh-area product design company, created Inventionland to get his employees out of their cubicles and into a place that inspires creativity."
 * 2) The subject of the article holds eight patents in his own name, solely or jointly, thus warranting the title of inventor as well as CEO and founder of his company.
 * 1) The subject of the article holds eight patents in his own name, solely or jointly, thus warranting the title of inventor as well as CEO and founder of his company.
 * Delete. Touting someone as local is essentially stating that someone fails WP:GNG.  He may be an entreprenuer, and creative, and a genius, and a really nice guy, but I can't see how he's anything more than a run of the mill businessman. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. I am also highly doubtful of the veracity of any of the claims in the article about the subject, based on this FTC decision. He might be a very bad guy, but that does not make him notable either. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * comment As I was directed above by GDallimore: "Vague generalisations about article content contribute nothing to a discussion - try to address the notability guidelines specifically." Christi212Cassidy (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * comment With the sources and notes above, the "local" notwithstanding, I believe the article George McConnell Davison meets Wikipedia's notability standards for people. Christi212Cassidy (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge - A quick sniff test definitely raises red flags and concerns relating to WP:SELFPROMOTION, WP:VANITY, WP:ADVERT. As a sidenote, it's funny that Notability (people) doesn't mention what makes business people notable. Agree with GDallimore's assessment that "they really only talk about Davison in connection with his company and not as an individual". Subject does not appear notable outside his involvement with the company. NickCT (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I too tend to agree with GDallimore's statement about the sources mostly writing about the company, not him. The WP:GNG is probably not met here, and when one takes into account the red flag issues raised by NickCT above, even if the first bar of GNG is reached here, it also states "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." I think that is the consensus of those who don't have a personal interest in the article. - Wine Guy ~Talk  21:56, 16 July 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.