Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caitlyn schmidt

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 04:58, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caitlyn schmidt

apparently ego stroking; very POV, information cannot be verified

• Delete. Not notable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. - Mailer Diablo 14:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious vanity foolishness. Fawcett5 18:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Believe it or not, the patent is real: patent and most of the facts match up. She would have been 11 when it was filed (can minors hold patents?), and it's described as a toy rather than a tool. I can't find any info that there was any legal wrangling against Black & Decker though, unless keeping it quiet was part of the settlement. In any case, I applaud her inventive spirit, but I don't feel that all the zillions of US patent-holders need articles, unless they're famous inventors or otherwise notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:56, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for use of the word genius and the fact that patents are not inherently encyclopedic. Wyss 02:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Andrew Lenahan. Jonathunder 20:59, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
• Keep, True story. This was mentioned in an editorial of Popular Science the year the Snakelight came out (Popsci doesn't have an archive search and I don't remember the issue).128.148.38.233 21:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) 128.148.38.233 (talk • contribs)'s only edits are to the article and this VfD.
• Keep, The patent and person are real. If we can have articles on minor characters of obscure Japanese cartoons, and strange computer related colloquialisms, why should an article about a real person be deleted?McClamm 06:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, - I remember this kid - I think she was the second youngest kid in the USA to hold a patent. That in itself is noteworthy. More important - she was in PopSci for Kids and a PopSci editorial that confirmed Black and Decker was not the creative genius behind the snakelight. It is a modern twist on the David and Goliath story. Kudos to you, Caitlyn. You deserve your moment in history.

(User: mustangshar)--24.95.134.20 17:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) This is 24.95.134.20 (talk • contribs)'s only edit.

• Keep, Most of the offending vanity material must have been elided from the entry. I don't see any of the references to the "genius" comment or the other topics. As for the topic of invention, this device did play a large role in American popular culture, especially in the late 90's as a mainstream consumer product. I feel that this warrants an entry. 138.16.24.131 08:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) 138.16.24.131 (talk • contribs)'s only edits are to the article and this VfD.
• Delete, it seems the patent exists, but no proof whatsoever that Black and Decker purchased it. Googling combinations of "Caitlyn schmidt" and light, black, decker, flashlight... gives back no hits. Just that a Caitlyn Schmidt is indeed studying CS at Brown. So it's of questionable significance and questionable truth value. Delete. For now. Fuzheado | Talk 08:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. And not verifiable, per Fuzheado. Radiant! 13:51, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I think many of you are quick to delete simply because something is not googleable. However, that's far from being a justifiable reason for deleting something. The patent exists, and particularly if you look at the law firm that represented Black and Decker during their patent infringement suits on the snake light in the late 90's, you'll see that they did not indeed own the patents on the device until almost a year after its release. [1]. Additionally, because this event occurred before the rise of web-zines and newspapers online, it would be difficult to read such online. However, given the actual patent information and the discussion of the product's history in that link, it is impossible not to infer that is one of the four purchased and acquired by Black and Decker.Etamura 16:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Being a patent holder, even a young one, does not make her notable. DaveTheRed 18:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - The data is legit, and the story is marginally interesting, but this should be a blurb in snake light or maybe in patent as a bit of history. This is not worth an article on it's own. BigFatDave 09:50, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP As a avid reader if Popular Science of over the years, and a amateur tinker/inventor myself, I remember The kudo's that were given to this girl by the Editor-in-Chief of Popular Science Fred Abatemarco. In their "Best of what's New Edition"(December 1994) Fred commented that Caitly's invention was as notable as any of the 100 greatest achievements in science and technology for 1994. I would venture to say coming from a man that lives new ideas and products that it iten is a keeper -TinkTank This unsigned vote by 129.33.1.37 (talk • contribs), who removed another's comments when placing this vote at the top of the page.
• KEEP Because this is the truth and is significant. The Snake Light's success has been an undeserved yet model case study in many business schools. This article testifies to the little known reality that many companies simply steal or obtain inventions by legal pressure and then reap the profits. Even if it involves young children. 24.131.148.205 (talk • contribs)'s two edits are to this VfD.
• Comment. I am dubious. Although the patent is real, I'm not sure about the rest of the story. I searched the major newspaper databases on both Westlaw and LexisNexis, and found no articles about this person. I think that, were the whole thing true, there would have been something said about it some newspaper. --BD2412 03:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.