Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Scott-Scott

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. postdlf (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Scott-Scott

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

WP:GNG. Müdigkeit (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep For heavens sake. I added referenced notability to the article, he's been interviewed by the British Library, he invented a type of rocket that successfully made orbit, and he's working on a spaceplane that also will make orbit, how much more notable does he need to be???? GliderMaven (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources is independent.--Müdigkeit (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's incorrect, he owns none of the sources, and they are all independent. He's being interviewed, he's a well respected engineer. Even the fact that he's being interviewed confers notability.GliderMaven (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You want to say this is independent? It is obvious that it is not. And the youtube video is from the British Library, and lacks the significant coverage, he is even labeled as one of many there...

And the British Library itself has lots of that type of material (over 1 million), it is not a reliable source. And that interview is not a secondary source, it is a primary source. And not everyone who was interviewed is notable, what makes you think so?--Müdigkeit (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're claiming that a video published by the British Library as part of their Oral History Program is not published by a reliable source?

Well, you're welcome to that opinion, but I personally consider that the British Library is a reliable source in this context.GliderMaven (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's other videos I've seen him also, from the same program, most of the people in these videos are notable, the cover other things involving UK aerospace. Eric Brown featured heavily and one or two American test pilots as well.GliderMaven (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The interviews are primary sources.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews and documentaries are secondary sources because they've been put together by the producer of the footage who have editorial control.GliderMaven (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He also features in a long article by Francis Spufford in the London Review of Books on the history of the UK space programme: [1]. ~~(If I could remember my subscriber logon I'd be in a better position to quote.)~~ "John Scott-Scott was a hydrodynamicist at Armstrong Siddeley Rocket Motors ... He invented a turbo-pump incorporating a floating ‘cavitation bubble’ which could turn at 100,000 rpm. " AllyD (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds right, I've never seen a good reference to it, but I have it on good authority that he invented a supersonic turbopump, that would be the one.GliderMaven (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's also covered in Francis Spufford's Backroom Boys: The Secret Return of the British Boffin. I don't have the book to hand (but I have got a copy) but you can see an exert here: https://findings.com/source/c2UfOs/backroom-boys/ GliderMaven (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But he's notable just from the oral history stuff.GliderMaven (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now it looks like he is notable...--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag for expansion -- He may be notable, but the present articel does not show it. Clearly there is material out there to make a decent article, but some one needs to write it. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable, and there are independent sources. Interviews are only useful for things that are within the personal knowledge of the individual (such as their own opinions) and where the information itself is not controverted (see, e.g. actresses' birthdates); see the acceptable list of reflexive information at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. The British Library is perfectly reliable, that does not mean that any statement made by an interviewee in an interview conducted by them is reliable. --Bejnar (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2013 (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.