Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrity inventors


 * 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. I'm neutral on the issue of triviality, but would like to note that the patent numbers are probably sufficient Attribution, and (as a jurist) I'm unconvinced that we have a copyvio issue here: patent records are PD as government records and I don't know if the specific selection of individuals per se qualifies for copyright. Sandstein 20:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

List of celebrity inventors

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Just because one blog online presents us with this fun trivia information doesn't mean it merits inclusion on wikipedia. Delete this list, but move the patent information to each actor's individual article, seeing as it may be something noteworthy for them. Usedup 18:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC) •
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 00:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's kind of interesting, but appears to be copied from its one source, changed only in alphabetizing- that's still a copyviolation issue, in my opinion.  Any of the patents that are noteworthy (and I'm not convinced that they all are), can be added to individual articles.  Interesting web page, though. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - any article with the word "celebrity" in the title is going to suffer from POV problems as there is no objective definition of who is or isn't a "celebrity." Otto4711 19:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename and add more sources. The term "celebrity" is loaded, so change it to "actors" or "public figures" or something like that. I think the topic warrants inclusion and is a specific enough subject to be maintainable as a list. Plus it is of genuine interest - I'd heard about Marlon Brando's invention recently, and Hedy Lamarr's work is legendary and notable, but it's a revelation to learn Abraham Lincoln and Danny Kaye also had inventions. Once again, though, material like this needs to be better sourced, but otherwise in my view the subject is perfectly encyclopedic. 23skidoo 20:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Being encyclopedic and meriting its very own article is not synonymous. What "more sources"? There's nothing more to say about this. Usedup 20:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. One in 100 Americans has a patent - it's not especially notable that members of one profession (or one POV aggregation such as "celebrity") have filed patents. Notable patents such as Winchell's heart and Lamarr's device should have their own articles due to third-party notice. Others can be mentioned on the notable individual's page. -- Charlene 20:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely. :) Usedup 20:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOT. I agree the name should changed to public figures. - Peregrine Fisher 00:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should be attributable to a reliable source. This is policy. That entire page is attributable to some blogger's personal excursion into the patent files. Usedup 01:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, patent files are very reliable, and the information is thus easily attributable. That said, I remain neutral on this particular article.  -- Black Falcon 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and link to patents. I doubt that 1/100 people have a patent, I would have to see a source. Anyway, 1/100 people are not in Wikipedia, and these are patents held by actors listed in Wikipedia or patents outside ones field. Its a good almanac type entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, I agree that I'd like to see proof that one in 100 Amercians holds a patent. I'm willing to bet one in 100 Americans aren't notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles (or otherwise be world famous) as those listed here are. Obviously the list would need to be vetted for any unconfirmed or made-up information, but that applies to any list. 23skidoo 03:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Notable patents should be mentioned in the persons article, other patents shouldn't be mentioned at all. :) Having a list of the patents of a certain group of people is not useful. "List of celebrity inventors" is as bad as a "List of high school teacher inventors". Pax:Vobiscum 13:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Even though I'm partial to myself, cause I put up this article, I'd say keep. There are tons of celebrity lists on wikipedia if you do a quick search, and this one is informative enough for me. I want to keep it, and rather write a little bit more on each patent on this article. Bib 15:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per possible copyvio concerns raised by FisherQueen and Usedup's WP:ATT concerns. Information like this is probably best suited to a small mention on the individual celebritys' articles. If the article is significantly re-written, feel free to drop a note on my talk page and see if I'll change my vote. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per 23skidoo and WP:NOT. Matthew 10:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: If we had a Wikitrivia, we could transwiki it to that. I'm neutral. Noroton 00:15, 14 March 2007 (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.