Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sidney A. Beeers


 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Sidney A. Beeers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable 'inventor' Essentialy this is a snippet from Scientific American, 1858, based on their reprinting of a patent application.

Making a patent application and having SA reporting your pretty diagram does not notability make.

Beeers gets zero gHits apart from this article & the commons image. Tagishsimon (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being vigilant, but deleting this article would certainly be a bit overzelous. Sidney A. Beeers was ahead of his time, as Elastic Track Support (EGG) is quite common these days. Therefore, I do not see a need, for refusing the credit to the original patent holder. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Having a Wikipedia page is not a reward or honor, and not a mechanism to give credit to someone who did something we think is deserving of recognition but is not notable as Wikipedia defines it. Agricolae (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  08:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  08:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - the page was moved to a name without the typo, but I moved it back pending a decision on this AfD, else it would apply just to the redirect. If the conclusion is to retain the page, then it will need to be moved again to the correct spelling. That being said . . . .  Agricolae (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - None of the cited sources provide any biographical detail on the subject, nor does any other non-primary source I have found. The Scientific American item is a summary of the invention that only gives the inventor's name and address as it appears on the patent documentation (not his only address - he seems to be living somewhere else in every record I find).  The second reference is that patent itself, and again the only information it provides about the subject is his name and address. The third reference is a list of patents relevant to railroads, and gives nothing more than his name, and the fourth is a map that he drafted, which has his name on it.  A Google Books search for "Sidney A. Beers" returns just eleven hits that name him, which are all either a summary of the American patent or mention of the map without further describing Beers or providing any further details on the man. A search using his full middle name turns up another 13 hits, all of them British sources either listing or briefly describing the same patent when he applied for it in Britain.  He did have a passport application and shows up in censuses, Brooklyn city directories, and the 1863 tax rolls, but this is just the typical detritus of a run-of-the-mill mid-19th century life and does not constitute personal WP:NOTABILITY. Agricolae (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Move or keep: Thank you very much for the comprehensive search. Do you think moving the article to Improved elastic railroad would resolve the perceived lack of notability? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The current content has no article-quality (WP:GNG-satisfying) sourcing, no matter what name you give it. Bare patent announcements do not establish notability for either Sydney Beers or for Improved elastic railroad, nor does parroting the descriptions and claims made in an original patent application indicate that any of the content is reliable or noteworthy (patents are usually granted by default, as long as the application satisfies the appropriate forms, and their accuracy is only tested when challenged). Moving this only puts the same problematic content (most of which deals with Beers and not the railroad) under a different namespace, but doesn't resolve the inherent lack of notability. It is not even clear to me that Improved elastic railroad is really 'a thing' and not just the description Beers used for his invention in the patent application. For a stand-alone article specifically on Beers' track design, we would need multiple later sources indicating the importance of that specific design, and we don't have that.  Simply having a patent granted is insufficient for WP:GNG, not for the inventor, not for the invented item, and moving this fails to address the core problem that it just isn't notable. Agricolae (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: Searched in JSTOR, found a lot of ideas for reducing maintenance costs on railroads, but nothing about this. His name brings up nothing.    // Timothy ::  talk  12:19, 9 September 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.