Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James William McGhee (2nd nomination)


 * 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 to delete; default to keep. - Philippe &#124; Talk 04:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

James William McGhee
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Still no evidence of notability; the only source is an obscure court record about a patent case he lost; yes, had a few patents, but notability is about independent (which his patents are not) reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. Nothing cited has ANY coverage of the subject (neither the patents nor the court case say one word about the inventor, so they don't support notability). This is just one in a series of articles written by a family member, for vanity essentially. Dicklyon (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:N and also due to the fact this is the 2nd Afd for this article. ArcAngel (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; no significant coverage in reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Being the inventor of the now-commonplace Drapery hook in itself indicates notability. --Oakshade (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with that portion of WP:N; can you point it out? Besides, the cited court ruling says "we fail to find in plaintiffs' device any patentable novelty." Dicklyon (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Asking for a "must have invented the Drapery hook" portion of WP:N is just silly WikiLawyering. The introduction of WP:N has a common sense clause. --Oakshade (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be silly. I was asking for a part about having invented something "now-commonplace" which is what you've said implies notability. Dicklyon (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Same answer. Someone who was the originator or inventor of something that is now commonplace is notable per WP:N's common sense clause. --Oakshade (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds like you're reverting to the "because I said so" argument. The only thing I see about invention at WP:N is in the footnote that says "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it."  Since McGhee has never anywhere been mentioned in connection with the invention of the drapery hook, as far as we know, and since the court said there was nothing novel in his patent, I wonder what version of common sense you are applying here.  I think it makes more sense to fall back on the general notability requirement: "presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; where are such sources? Dicklyon (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A single judge claiming this person's invention is "nothing novel" (apparently that judge was overruled by a higher court) doesn't magically make this person's invention of the drapery hook insignificant. Anyone who has installed or taken down drapes works with this person's invention, whether a judge called it "nothing novel" or not.  That's common sense.  That's why it's in the very first section of WP:N. --Oakshade (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that the "common sense" exception is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, but I don't see how it applies here. Are you saying that anyone who invented some little piece of commonplace hardware is thereby a notable person?  Seems unlikely to me, but it's a point that could be discussed on the talk page of WP:NOTE.  You want to bring it up there? Propose it? Dicklyon (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would answer yes. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There's no practical limit as to the number of articles that can be created.  "Commonplace hardware" are in fact very significant to the daily lives of millions (and sometimes billions) of people.  That's why they've become commonplace. --Oakshade (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oakshade: what is your basis for "A single judge claiming this person's invention is "nothing novel" (apparently that judge was overruled by a higher court)"? We have the district court finding the patent invalid, and the court of appeals (which would probably be three judges, although it could be more) agreeing.  "With the lower court, we fail to find in plaintiffs' device any patentable novelty; certainly there is no invention in the hook member."  Where are you getting the information that this was overruled by a higher court?  If it were in fact overruled, I would be inclined to Keep, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong on that point. TJRC (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and reference better. Excellent court case, excellent invention still used today. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been many months since the last time we tried to get some sources, but none are to be found, except for the court records of his patent suits. Those are not evidence of notability, since they are not at all independent of him. Dicklyon (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how court records are not independent of him. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. The court records are primary sources for activities that he was involved in, namely lawsuits; his involvement makes it not independent.  An independent report, e.g. in a newspaper, about those lawsuits and commenting on what was important about them, would be evidence of something notable.  Same with a patent itself; any inventor can get a patent, but if their invention never gets written up in an independent publication, and they never get to be known for it, where's the notability?  The drapery hook may be notable, and if it would make sense to discuss the priority fight in an article about it, but an article about the obscure guy who claims to have invented it does not meet the criteria of WP:NOTE; or if does, please point out which criterion is satisfied. Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I was not previously aware that you had created the drapery hook article. Seems like a good thing, so I included in it the material about the patent infringement suit.  As far as I can see, that's the entire sourced content of this article, so nothing will be lost if the article is deleted (except maybe his children's names, which you today indicated are sourced to the California birth index, but did you actually consult that record today, or sometime, or do you know them for other reasons?). Dicklyon (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I consulted today, I have a paid subscription to it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The final result in court appears to indicate that he lost. Is that correct, and does it mean that the courts judged him NOT to be "the inventor of the drapery hook?" Edison (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We're told that he eventually won (but unsourced). Either way, the court's decision doesn't support notability nor lack of notability.  But, since there's no evidence of notability, ... Dicklyon (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Getting a patent, or having a court case does not prove notability. Secondary newspaper/magazine/book/TV discussion of such a patent or case, which seems to be here absent, could prove notability. Edison (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep interesting, informative and supported by reliable sources to establish notability. The fact that this is the second AfD only adds to the disruption. Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF. --Veritas (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I filed the first one, too, which closed with "no consensus" even though nobody offered any evidence of notability. We gave it plenty of time for interested parties to find some sources, but it hasn't happened.  I was originally attracted to this article by virtue of having list of inventors on my watch list; it gets random and vanity entries at a good rate, and this was one of those.  The user who created it also made articles for three or four other family members; coupling them into one AfD confused the issue, which is another reason we needed a second AfD. I'm not sure what this disrupts. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alansohn, "interesting" and "informative" are not notability criteria, and I don't see any reliable sources that establish notability. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete How many patents are there? Not everyone with one is notable.--Veritas (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete One patent case, which he lost, and is not regarded as a precedent, in the absence of anything else, does not confer notability. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 15:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - There's no evidence that anyone outside of Wikipedia thinks this guy is notable. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is an article on someone whose only basis of notability is that he claimed to have invented a novel and non-obvious drapery hook. Two courts -- the District Court for the Southern District of California, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals -- found that he did not.  Unless there are some really extenuating circumstances, which don't appear present here, the entire basis for notability was vitiated 80 years ago.  If the patent had been sustained, I'd probably be saying "Keep"; while not all inventions inherently result in notability, if the invention is in common and widespread use, and as well-known, as this one is, that would be enough for me.  But what this article boils down to is: there was a guy who tried to patent a gizmo, and he failed.  I recognize that he had a temporary success when the patent issued in 1923 before the district court tossed it out sometime between 1923 and 1929, but ultimately, this is just about a guy who tried and failed to get a valid patent, nothing more. TJRC (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect to McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc. I would strongly urge that the material be retained in a legal article on his court case rather than deleted from wikipedia altogether.  There are plenty of legal articles on this website that are considered notable in the legal field but obscure to the general public, just as there are several articles on quantum physics which are obscure to those unfamiliar with the subject.  As far as reasons why to retain the article, first, McGhee was the leading case in the 9th circuit clarifying the meaning of "prior publication" for invalidating a patent.  This might not be apparent to those who are unfamiliar with patent law.  Invalidating a patent can be as legally significant as upholding a patent.  Second, this case is cited if a few textbooks.  It is nice to have a source on the internet where a patent law professor can show a picture of the person who is litigating a patent's validity when illustrating how prior publication can destroy a party's chances of seeking a valid patent.  A few articles on wikipedia provide illustrations or pictures such as Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon.  It is more helpful to have a little more background about the parties that come to a case because it puts the case into context and helps us to remember both law and circumstances.  Third, the case is the first in a line of precedent in the 9th Circuit that interpreted the 2nd Circuit's decision in Jockmus v. Leviton 28 F.2d 812 (1928), which is the most influential case on the meaning of publication in the early 20th century.  We cite Jockmus because it was written by Learned Hand.  McGhee is significant because it is the historical adoption of the Jockmus ruling in the 9th Circuit, which made it the binding precedent regarding prior publication (contrary to Rodhullandemu's contention).  What I can conceive as a better solution is to Merge or redirect into a McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc..  The Author of the article has an interest in promoting his ancestors, but this information is more useful in its legal context than in its biographical context. Legis Nuntius (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What's notable about McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc.? Did it enunciate any important point of law, or provide a particularly scholarly approach to a legal issue?  Although certainly some appellate cases are legitimate bases for Wikipedia articles, most of them are not.  I don't even think every Supreme Court case is worthy of an article; and unlike the Supreme Court, any losing litigant may appeal to the appropriate court of appeals as of right.  The vast majority of these cases, even the vast majority of the reported cases, are insufficiently notable for an article.  Unless there's some special basis for this case, I don't see sufficient notability for an article.  In addition, there's almost nothing about the case itself in this article.  I'm against the redirect. TJRC (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's true that the case is cited in several textbooks, and if someone has access to those books and can write the article, then they should do so. But there's not much in the present article worth saving. Dicklyon (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * McGhee is the first case in the 9th circuit to "enunciate" the broad interpretation of "prior publication" in patent law. As I stated above, it adopted the holding in Jockmus.  A prior publication may be as simple as an advertisement in a catalog.  In some cases, it can even be a picture without any description.  This interpretation does not necessarily follow from the 1836 Act.  It is completely absent from the article on Novelty (patent).  It is somewhat hinted at in Defensive publication.  The author of the McGhee article intended to create articles of his ancestors.  In the case of this article, his ancestor was involved in a 9th circuit court case that decided an issue of law for the first time in that circuit and on a point that is absent from wikipedia.  What is notable about McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co.?  It illustrates a point of law not present on wikipedia. Legis Nuntius (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you have a book about this. Want to write it up? Dicklyon (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is actually not much more to that. The source is not a book, but a 55 page ALR article which has a single paragraph on the McGhee case in a broader discussion on publication.  I'm not very familiar with this facet of patent law.  It only came up when I looked into seeing if the case was notable.  The case also pops up in a 7 volume treatise on patent law in the law library here.  That entry briefly describes the facts of the case, the holding, and a very brief discussion of its jurisprudence.  It is also in a patent textbook, but after a redacted entry on Jockmus.  These entries aren't huge, but then again they exist.  Wikipedia's guidelines on notability aren't very clear.  McGhee is more than a footnote, which is much more than most circuit court cases, but there are many other court cases of far more significance which need articles.  So, I believe the case is notable hence my vote, but I understand the votes to the contrary.  I'm afraid that it would take a great deal of research for me to develop an accurate article, ergo it may not survive the Afd if no others pick it up to make better use of it. Legis Nuntius (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep most of the patents McGhee filed were not questioned or challenged and the drapery hook was also patented in Canada which was recognized throughout the entire British Empire, at that time, an area with more population than the US. The Canadian patent was never challenged or questioned. I think this is a great example of how a big business can beat up a little guy and steal his patents (ideas) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joegillus (talk • contribs) 07:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)  — Joegillus (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP I have to agree with Oakshade and Joegillus. I use this invention in my home as I am sure many people do - it's common sense to include the inventor - his Canadian patent is included in the article - that's good enough for me. That's why 'common sense' is mentioned in the very first section of WP:N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.184.145 (talk • contribs) — 71.106.184.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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.