Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard G. Johnson


 * 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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Leonard G. Johnson

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This individual doesn't appear to have garnered significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Bongo  matic  01:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As an inventor whose ideas and concepts are being covered in reliable sources, it would seem he meets the criteria for creative professionals as set forth in WP:CREATIVE. And it is to be noted that per guideline, "many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."  However, as this inventor IS getting coverage, that point is moot.  And a nice aside, is that this inventor has set a "first" in that in 2008, he completed the United State’s first pure biofuel transcontinental flight using bio-butanol in an experimental airplane he personally built. So this guy is not a BLP1E.  And yes.... the article would definitely benefit from cleanup... but this is an issue best addressed through regular editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * keep Mr. Schmidt's comment combined witht the Air & Space article (an independant and reliable source), meet the threshold for me.--kelapstick (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC
 * keep Disclosure: original author. My first contribution, and not yet up to Wiki writing standards- Mr. Schmidt's comments are spot on. Bongomatic is correct that there are few secondary sources, however this is itself of secondary importance per WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also per guidelines, the first biofuel flight across America is notably interesting as a "first". Combined with the successful demonstration of the viability of bio-butanol as an aviation fuel replacement for leaded gasoline, and the subject's activities in making the production of sufficient quantities of required bio feedstocks practical, the subject appears to clear the threshold. FlyButanol (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Butanol fuel as a WP:BLP1E. I know not from where the unreferenced biographical details come from, but the independent sources cited in the article appear to be about the flight. I do not think the amount and degree of coverage indicates that he passes any of the points in WP:CREATIVE, and I disagree with the article creator that secondary sources are of secondary importance. WP:GNG specifically states that sources "for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." (WP:BASIC states something very similar.) I also respectfully disagree with Schmidt who cites a statement in WP:BIO that points to Notability (academics), a notability guideline that the subject clearly does not pass. Location (talk) 05:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant that WP:NOTABILITY emphasizes the quality and independence of sources, intending to say that "few secondary sources" were of secondary importance, not that "secondary sources" were. I apologize for muddying the debate. FlyButanol (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep obvious keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2010 (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.