Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Chayer

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 Delete. No third-party sources to assert notability. Black Kite 17:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Chayer

Steven Chayer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Subject does not appear to be notable. No indepedent sources where the person is the subject of the work. Only sources are being quoted in a local magazine and patents (having which should be considered trivial unless they have some special significance). Declined speedy turned to prod, contested prod. Cquan (after the beep...) 16:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

All my comments for this are already under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steven_Chayer Drewhamilton (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

He's also the founder and president of a major company. I don't understand how this is not notable. Cquan, in his glib discussion at me, says "anyone can get a patent." And regarding: "no independent sources where the person is the subject of the work"... Don't 3 patents under your name make both you and the inventions the subjects? Drewhamilton (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Patents have the invention discussed as their subject, not their inventor. Also, patents are by virtue of inventorship non-indepedent from their inventors (especially in the US where inventorship by a person is a requirement under law for a patent) and are thus equivalent to a paper or article written by the inventor as far as WP:RS goes. Thus they don't qualify as indepedent sources. Hope that clarifies that. Cquan (after the beep...) 15:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT delete my comments. It's not off-topic or you wouldn't have gone and changed what you had on your User Page. Here is what I had posted and Cquan deleted. Hope that clarifies that.

"While I'm at it can I request my own deletion of part of Cquan's User page? His link to "Someone's request to be unblocked...and throwing a tantrum: [3]...absolutely priceless" is just unnecessary and mean-spirited."

And really, an inventor isn't part of the subject surrounding a patent? That's ridiculous. And a patent is the same as an article written by an inventor? Can you source that please?

Drewhamilton (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Well, not gonna get into an edit war on an AfD page. So for reference:
Actually thanks for pointing it out...I deleted it because that user's page got deleted so there's nothing left to see. As far as patents, this is how the Wikipedia article patent approaches it:
"A patent is, in effect, a limited property right that the government offers to inventors in exchange for their agreement to share the details of their inventions with the public." (i.e. the "patent document" is a disclosure by the inventor of information about the invention, making the inventor the author or, in some cases, the author by proxy)
"In the United States, however, only the natural person(s) (i.e. the inventor/s) may apply for a patent." (i.e. original ownership of the patent lies with the inventor, as is the case with other intellectual works such as articles)
Thus, a patent as a reference can be treated as non-independent from its inventor, which disqualifies their usage as a source to establish notability.
Cquan (after the beep...) 19:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Full support to Cquan's view, who requested my opinion. A Google search on "Steven Chayer" (29 hits) does not demonstrate notability under Wikipedia guidelines: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". IMHO the subject of the article has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Alone, obtaining three patents cannot be considered a sign of notability. --Edcolins (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time for this. I can go around requesting opinions too. (And looking for people who will support my side.) I don't care much about the article anymore. All I care about is that it's noted that you're unfriendly and proud of it. I like to keep myself busy MAKING articles instead of sitting around doing nothing but deleting them (although I do patrol vandals and new pages when I don't have an article in mind.) I've had articles deleted before but the editors I dealt with were not condescending and showed no glee in other people's foibles. Drewhamilton (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Looks to me like Edcolins' opinion was requested because of his patent background, not because he would support one side or the other in this discussion.GDallimore (Talk) 11:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete A patent cannot establish notability of a person since it is not independent of the subject, nor does it discuss the person at length. Only one other source which might be relevant is mentioned in the article, but that doesn't discuss him at length (it's an article about interior design that has a brief quote from him) and is therefore not substantial coverage. GDallimore (Talk) 11:09, 1 June 2008 (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.