Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georges Lakhovsky
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. The issue seems to be whether patents confirm notability and reliable sources rather than whether or not he is notable. If there's been prior discussion on this topic let me know, otherwise now would be a nice time to look into this. Wizardman 05:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Georges Lakhovsky
No reliable sources. Google Scholar gives a lot of patents (not acceptable as sources), and index-links [A few journals get indexed by the usual sites, but are not notable enough for anyone to go through the bother of giving abstracts, etc. So you just get the journal, author, and title listed.] There's nothing we could use to make a balanced, encyclopædic article. I suppose we could just cut it down to a permanent stub or something, but I was of the impression we didn't like to do that. Adam Cuerden talk 20:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The patents themselves aren't evidence of the utility of the patented device, but the existence of the patents, and the modern patents building on his
quakery"work" speak to notability. Mykej (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)- I don't know - that seems a pretty tenuous link to notability, and if we don't have enough resources to write a good article, it's hard to see how that's sufficient. Adam Cuerden talk 08:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Patents are not really evidence of notability; they are merely evidence someone has filed a patent, paid the fee, and met the (low) legal threshold for patentability. LeContexte (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The mere award of patents does not prove notability--most patents are never exploited Notable quacks are of course notable, but there is no evidence of this either. Minor and unimportant pseudoscience. DGG (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Patents only really become notable if they are found to be enforceable. Evidence for that would be if substantial royalties were paid to the inventor or if a court decided in favour of the inventor in a dispute. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep to err on the side of caution. Scientific credibility (Lakhovsky seems to have none) does not equal notability (Lakhovsky seems to have a little). There may not be anything online to make a good article of this, but there may be other sources. --Lockley (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep The claim "no reliable sources" cannot be correct. Patents are legitimate sources (though not evidence of notability). The subject's published articles are also a legitimate source. Nor is it appropriate to object the fact that Googling produces lists of articles on subscription-required sites. I am not qualified to comment on the subject's notability, but the answer to a dearth of cited sources is to tag it for citations to be provided, not to tag it for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2007 (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.
