Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Kehoe

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 keep; no consensus to merge but merging can be further discussed, there was a consensus to merge at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Sabnis. W.marsh 13:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Kehoe

Tim Kehoe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Vanity article about a nonnotable person, spamming for his commercial product. Fashionslide 04:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep; Next time you nominate an article for lack of notability, check Google first. There is significant coverage in reliable sources about Kehoe here, here, and most significantly, an eleven page article about Kehoe and his invention Zubbles in Popular Science. Masaruemoto 04:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Links above establish notability. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Zubbles (or weak expand, though I don't think there's enough to warrant a separate article even with the popsci article). Torc2 05:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The subject in question has invented numerous toys and how can he be not notable? There is also significant coverage on reliable sources for this article as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Where? Every article linked in the article is about Zubbles. What else has he done that's notable that wouldn't belong in the Zubbles article? Torc2 08:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Zubbles per Torc2. The links found by Jayron32 are good, but they tend to assert notability of Zubbles, not its creator. —gorgan_almighty 13:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep minimally notable. JJL 14:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think there's enough there due to the focus that the sources give to his personal involvement in the invention. He's a bit like Art Fry in that regard. The revolutionary -- per sources -- dye that he's invented has promise for applications that go far beyond the toy. --Dhartung | Talk 16:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence for notability beyond that one invention. Even the popsci article talks about nothing else. DGG (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep meets WP:BIO due to the abundance of reliable coverage, merging is also an option but not entirely necessary. Yamaguchi先生 02:41, 20 October 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.