Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter W. Gauer


 * 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. The original version of this article is a foundational copyvio from 2012 obits. While I suspect that the any new article would need to be written about the invention and not the man, we can't support this text in any case. j⚛e deckertalk 22:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Walter W. Gauer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tagged for notability, not sure this person is notable. Most of the refs from google books are directory type entries. Gbawden (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per WP:NPERSON Found multiple references but they are not secondary . feels like a good source, but it was from the company that Walter started. So before any further references are found. I'll go with Delete.  TheQ Editor     (Talk) 17:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There is much information regarding the machine Mr. Gauer invented however they are in book and magazines that are not available online. One write up is in "Metal Center News" February 1975 issue, there was also a write up in "World Industrial Reporter" in 1975, "Iron Age" February 1965, "Modern Metals" 1964, There was a Spanish article in "Reportero Industrial" 1964, Several "New Equipment Digest" 1964, as well as many others. I just cannot find any of this information in a digital format, is there away to site not online write ups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.193.142 (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * , Yes I agree that the invention is definitely notable, but not the inventor. The notability guideline states that the subject has to be the subject of discussion of multiple secondary sources. So we're talking about the inventor, not the invention. Hope this makes it clear.  ΤheQ Editor   Talk? 16:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 15:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (chinwag)  @ 19:01, 11 September 2014 (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.