Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Feynman

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 of the debate was no consensus, article is kept. - Liberatore(T) 15:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Feynman

non-notable, fewer than 1000 GHits. Being the son of a notable person does not make you famous. M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. He doesn't appear notable beyond family connections. If he has accomplished something notable, then this article should be expanded to establish that. One note however is that a lot of notable topics have fewer than 1000 google hits simply because of the nature of the article. While google hits are helpful to establish notability , I don't believe they should be used as a reason for deletion. Falphin 02:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 04:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does not assert notablility in article. :) Dlohcierekim 04:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As stated above, notability is not inherited. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 09:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Surely you're joking, Mr Feynman? Just zis Guy you know? 11:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable--Jusjih 15:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; possibly WP:VAIN is relevant, too. (Amazing how long this article's been around, though). Bucketsofg✐ 16:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Nick C 18:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bucketsofg jgp 19:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Richard Feynman. It is relevant to someone's biog to give some info about their children - if it is verifiable. Tyrenius 20:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep just about, in deference to Zippy's research below.Tyrenius 16:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree; Merge with and Redirect to Richard Feynman. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC) In light of info about published works, changing opinion to Keep, since he seems to meet authorship requirements. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (and mark as stub:bio) - published author, hundreds of Google hits. I agree that the article needs expanding, and believe this is unlikely to happen if it's deleted. Here are two external links to support the notability of the subject: Feynman's Lost Lecture: The Motion of Planets Around the Sun by Carl Feynman, How to count sheep without falling asleep by Ralph Leighton and Carl Feynman. In my mind, 2+ published books establishes notability and a separate identity from Richard Feynman. --Zippy 15:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any more that can be added to the article to establish notability? Tyrenius 15:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably. I haven't done much research on him, but in the quick Google search I just did I noticed that he's one of the first people at Danny Hillis's company Thinking Machines (along with the Internet Archive's Brewster Kahle) and also a party to a lawsuit against the California Institute of Technology and Norton (the book publisher). --Zippy 16:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe we're considering a merge seriously only because of his relation to a famous person. Do this as a thought experiment -- imagine he's not related to Richard Feynman for a moment -- say his name is Carl Smith. So we have Carl Smith, the author of two books (one a popular work about physicist Richard Feynman) and an early contributor at one of the companies that arguably invented the concept of massively parallel computing. Wouldn't this person be notable? According to WP:Notability (people) the answer is yes: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 ..." --Zippy 16:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per Hit bull. --Slgrandson 16:30, 17 May 2006 (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.