Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Harrison (inventor)

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Harrison (inventor)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Typical spam.Promotional.Fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades^Godric 11:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks like I A7d this in January. This may be borderline, and might be saved if it gets some work. I'm not sure. It is overall kindof spammy, and it maybe crosses conceptual lines as far as notability goes. So, for example, he doesn't really fall under NPROF, but that doesn't mean that patents aren't something that contribute to notability, even if they may not get wide coverage in the media, and even if they themselves wouldn't be sufficient alone to establish notability without... something else.

Whether "something else" is out there is a little hard to tell. It's a pretty common name. I did find this from The Telegraph. I don't know that anyone is going to question the reliability of the source, and it's pretty much exactly the kind of in-depth coverage we're looking for. It's a heckuva lot better than the other Telegraph article currently cited. If there's more, I could probably be pretty easily swayed toward a keep, with an admitted recommendation for a near total rewrite for tone. TimothyJosephWood 12:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient notability for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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.