Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dayton inventions
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. MBisanz talk 04:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of Dayton inventions[edit]
- List of Dayton inventions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Listcruft. Lack of reliable sources. And even if it was renamed "List of inventions made by people who came from Dayton", this would still be listcruft. Edcolins (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --Edcolins (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless someone provides more links which support the information I agree with deletion. Many of these entries seem vague and general. Stratocracy (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the one who put the original tag on the article about problems with reliable sources, I also think that this article has some major issues. I happen to think that it will be very difficult to get independent, third-party sources about each and every item on the list.Danwalk (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Listcruft isn't a policy-based reason to delete, and the article has significant RSes. Seems to meet our inclusion guidelines, but in-line sourcing of each claimed invention would be good. Plenty to clean-up, nothing to delete that I see. Hobit (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find a single reliable source in the article. Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Third-party means independent from the subject. The closest to a reliable source is the University of Dayton web page to support "Dayton has more patents per capita than any other U.S. city". But this is not a third party source which would be independent from the subject, and for this statement the source is not reliable. Looking on the USPTO web site [1], you can get "Table 1. Number of UTILITY Patents Granted per 100,000 Population, by Metropolitan Area, 1998" [2] showing that Dayton had 11.5 patents per 100,000 inhabitants, way behind San Jose with 300.4 patents per 100,000 inhabitants. The other sources are self-published, and unreliable. --Edcolins (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also [3], showing relatively constant low grant numbers per capita for Dayton from 1990 to 1999. --Edcolins (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - interesting but of doubtful reliability. Deb (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added more citations and another of which is from the National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior website that has reliable information about the per capita invention information. As that article on that website states "According to the U.S. Patent Office, Dayton had ranked fifth in the nation in terms of patents granted per capita as early as 1870. Twenty years later, it led the nation.".[1] This is very reputable information on the subject and may provide better clarification by stating the year. As User:Hobit stated, it does meet the inclusion guidelines. There is not enough grounds for deletion, but it could use some clean up.Texas141 (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References[edit]
- ^ "National Park Service". Retrieved 2009-03-09.
- 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.