Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Graham (inventor)


 * 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. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 23:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

John Graham (inventor)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

BLP has no reliable sources and lots and lots of claims of inventions. Fearing this might not meet general notability guildelines. Perhaps I am wrong! SarahStierch (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; Obviously a very accomplished software designer and entrepreneur, but he doesn't appear to satisfy notability guidelines. To go over some of the specifics of WP:ARTIST:
 * 1) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors: This is the basic thesis of which all other criteria under this guideline are aimed at establishing. Therefore, in order for this point to be refuted, the others must be as well (in this instance, at least, as this person definitely exists and has had significant successes in his own right).
 * 2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique: There is no evidence of this in the article, nor is it asserted. It is established that he has developed several useful peripherals, but not necessarily anything innovative in and of itself.
 * 3) The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews: Again, not seeing it. The article states right in the introduction that he was featured in Marquis Who's Who, which is a magazine I'm unfamiliar with; but by the looks of things, inclusion in that publication is not particularly uncommon for even blatantly non-notable people (by our standards) if they have found success in their field. As an aside, I entered "John Graham" into the site's search engine, but could find nothing relating to this specific individual (as far as I can tell).
 * 4) The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums: Of the inventions listed under the "Past Creations" subheader, I could find none that have fulfilled any of the aforementioned significant milestones. As a point of reference, check out the following links.
 * Also, virtually none of his companies would satisfy the most basic criterion for coverage according to WP:ORG &mdash; An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The only conceivable exception would be GCA, if any one of the companies that pop up here are his (and one of them has a man with the same name as Vice President, although I doubt it's the same person).  In addition, the article almost reads as if it were a promotional feature for its subject and his companies, which in itself may be a concern. I'm just not convinced that this person is notable enough for inclusion, all things considered. Kurtis (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 08:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG, references are either self-published or otherwise unreliable. WWGB (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * delete grand claims but lacking reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2012 (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.