Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Thackeray


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ray Thackeray
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Dead links, links press releases, mere mentions -- I don't see enough for WP:GNG, but I might be missing something. Yakushima (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The edit summary for the article's creation says it all . I've made all those inline external links into "references" to make explicit how poor they are. Most are completely irrelevant and don't even mention him, the remainder are press releases, trivial mentions or broken links which are no doubt similar. I can't find anything to supplement this. Voceditenore (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subject fails to meet WP:N requirements.4meter4 (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Further work doesn't seem to be helping. As a sailor, fails WP:NSPORT.  As an executive, quoted here and there but in press releases; only one RS, but it doesn't mention him, failing WP:N.  Initial article creation is clearly with a WP:SPA.  If seeUthere could be established as a notable company, maybe he has a chance, but if there hasn't been an article for it in all this time, I'm doubtful there will ever be one.  (Surprise me!)  As an engineer, he wrote a paper that got cited a bit.  The article described his work as "seminal"; and a section of a book on quality engineering  was apparently adapted from an article he co-wrote, and the book got some good Amazon reviews  ... but OK, I'm stretching a little.  I don't see WP:ACADEMIC.    He was mentioned in one dead-linked source as having a patent, but I don't see WP:CREATIVE for engineer.  A couple hours of work should have turned up more than this. Yakushima (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is improving. It has improved dramatically today. It should stay and be given more time to grow. Those are my few words. Give it time. Alex³ (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of those recent "dramatic" improvements are courtesy of yours truly, and the article has shrunk, not grown, in the process. As I point out above, I'm leaning more toward strengthening my delete vote, if anything, as a result of working to improve the article.  Improvement as an article is somewhat orthogonal to notability, and notability is what needs to improve here, to clear WP:N. I'm improving the article only as a way to bring degree of notability into focus, as did Voceditenore, who voted delete after doing some extensive edits to help clarify the nature of sources (seemingly) cited (many of which did, indeed, turn out to be useless upon closer inspection).  Can you substantiate your Keep vote with a citation to adequate WP:RS treatment of the subject?  I haven't been able to find any. Will time tell?  The article's been around since late 2006, and never got much better than your average corporate-site "About Us" capsule bio. Yakushima (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Further comment The more I look, the more I suspect notability manufacturing by the article's originator.  See the comment on my edit here, where the editor claimed Thackeray was "seminal" in introducing QFD to software, on the basis of an uncited paper at an obscure conference that is apparently organized by a company (GOAL/QPC) largely on its own behalf (see, e.g., ).  See also the erstwhile claim of "lead inventor" on a (now withdrawn) patent with 20 "inventors", none of whom seemed able to meet the classic requirement that an invention be non-obvious.  He's also clearly not meeting WP:ENTERTAINER, with a resume consisting only of credits for bit parts in civic light opera.  We've verified that Ray Thackeray is an unusually accomplished person both in his career and in his hobbies.  But we're still pretty far from WP:N, I think. Yakushima (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply and Slight Delete I did notice all the work you have done improving it and I guess you would know a lot since you've been dealing with the article. I guess if it's not notable enough it should be deleted. Alex³ (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2011 (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.