Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Jalón Corominas


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Manuel Jalón Corominas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-credible claims from a single source. This designer appears to have made some adaptations of existing technology, but not to the degree that would make him notable in Wikipedia’s view. Qwirkle (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  19:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  19:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 *  Strong keep There are multiple, reliable sources presented in the article. These sources include the state-owned, public broadcaster RTVE and the 125-years old newspaper Heraldo de Aragón. Besides passing WP:GNG, the subject also meets WP:ANYBIO, receiving honors in the city of Zaragoza, and in the town of Trasmoz.

Another source included in the external links discusses how Manuel Jalón was legally confirmed as the inventor of the mop. I suggest that a section about the controversy is included in the article. --Alan Islas (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The idea that anyone “invented the mop” in the 20th century is the level of complete bullshit that we should not be presenting in an encyclopedia. The idea is laughable. His “invention”, if it be dignified as such, was an undersized version of a very, very, common commercial product; perhaps one not widely used in Spain, or his part of it, but it’s trivial to find cites for wringer bucket patents in the 19th century. There are a great many local folk-beliefs, and millions of middling-sized frogs who look big in their little pond. Doesn’t make them notable. Qwirkle (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The mop is definitely not a civilization-altering invention, and this particular claim may very well be a stretch of patent law, I don't know. On the other hand, the second contribution included in the article, improvements to the design of a disposable plastic syringe, arguably has more beneficial impact.


 * I do see your point though, and if I'm being honest (I am), I would not include him in an encyclopedia that was solely to my own taste. If it was my criteria I would probably also get rid of thousand other WP articles that I consider to be trivial, superficial or just plain silly. But since WP:NOTPAPER it allows the inclusion of the "small frog" articles that would not find a place in a more traditional encyclopedia (for example, today I copyedited an article about a singaporean yo-yo champion). Furthermore, for the people who live there those little ponds are important.


 * Apologies if I'm missing your point or if it sounds like I'm lecturing, it is not my intention at all. On the contrary, I'm just learning the ropes in WP and I appreciate this opportunity to learn from a more experienced editor. My strong keep vote was because the secondary sources cited seem solid but I did not delve deep into the claims themselves. I think adding references to older "prior art" into a criticism section would be useful, alongside with the controversy already alluded to in the external links section. I'm not sure if that constitutes original research, but personally I have nothing against it. The giggle test did embarrass me enough to move away from the "strong" keep (stricken) hehehe! Also, I think parts of the writing would benefit from a more neutral, less grandiose style, but respectfully I still believe this article meets WP criteria as they stand. Thank you! Alan Islas (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I think the claims for hypodermics are, if anything, even worse. The hypodermic syringe article on wiki is a good place to start looking, other names show up well before his involvement, and they source out nicely. The problem with localized sourcing is that local common knowledge tends to inflate local achievements. (Anyone who doubts this need only look at the plethora...nay, pleonasm, of wiki articles on small-fry New Jersey politicians.) Qwirkle (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I had another dive into the sources and now I agree with you, calling Manuel Jalón Corominas "the inventor of the mop" seems preposterous. You are right, what he did was improve existing models and adapt them to the Spanish market. I found this El Pais article that says something like that, although still calls him "the inventor of the mop" in the title. Furthermore, going to primary sources, his 1964 Spanish patent was given for "Mejores en los sistemas escurridores por compresion" (Improvements on compression dryer systems). Something similar seems to be true about the disposable plastic syringe, namely Jalon Corominas did some improvements and then sold a lot of them. The subject even referred to his designs (now I hesitate to call them inventions) as "silly little things" (my translation of the word "tonterias"), adding that they were very beneficial to people and profitable for him (paraphrasing).


 * So now I agree that the core claims are exaggerated perhaps due in part to local or nationalistic pride, but the notability and significant secondary sources are certainly out there (mostly in Spanish). So I think the keep still applies, even if the end result ends up being about a successful designer and entrepreneur that improved some useful older products (with widespread, contested intellectual property claims), and made enough money to buy a medieval castle. If anything, I believe having a balanced WP article that presents this subject in a more measured way (in contrast to many of the articles that show up in a google search) would be more useful than a full delete. Sorry for the long-winded replies and thanks again for this discussion. Alan Islas (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above in general, but I have very little confidence that this could remain an accurate article so long as wiki-circular junk infests the English-language parts of the internet, and boosterism some parts of the Spanish side. Fix it, it breaks as soon as your back is turned, like Frost’s fence. Qwirkle (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Did some work on the article to bring it closer to what was discussed above. Tried to correctly dimension the scope of the core claims about inventions, including more relevant sources and details. Also added sections and images from the town of Trasmoz related to the subject. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction. Alan Islas (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that’s a move in the right direction. A big part of the problem is that his design’s name became the default word for mops in parts of Spain. Hoover didn’t invent the vacuum, and Kleenex wasn’t the first tissue paper, but it is difficult to explain that to people who have a particular brand’s name imbedded in their vocabulary. Qwirkle (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2020 (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.