Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Billings

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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Billings[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Notability? Qwirkle (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly meets WP:GNG. There is a wealth of information and citations out there, I've added a number of them to the article to improve it. There is international sustained coverage over the period of many years, from 1996 to 2020 in reliable sources such as the Wall Street Journal, CBS News, Popular Mechanics, and in numerous books, including the Historical Encyclopedia of American Women Entrepreneurs. I did a search under her name and the word "inventor" to find these (when just googling her name, I found junk.) She is a notable woman inventor, and the article should be kept. Before !voting, please see the improved article. Netherzone (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, there appears to be a wealth of listicle dribble and pressreleasitis about her...and the press stuff dried up 15 years ago, give or take. There’s nothing sourced to serious engineering, material science, or building trades sources. There’s nothing showing the stuff is in use now, or was ever in wide use. Qwirkle (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. When and how much it was used is not the stuff a BLP is made of. This is about a person. What is relevant is the coverage. A profile in People. An article in the Wall Street Journal. And more. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article in the human interest/comic relief column of the WSJ? Kewl. Qwirkle (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per (and praise the good work of) Netherzone. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nomination is so deficient as to be eligible for WP:CSK #1. Moreover, Netherzone's great work indicates that the subject of this article is notable, so the article should be kept in any event. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly speedily - I agree with Netherzone. There's significant coverage added in here, from both the time of her prominence to now. Between the sourcing in the article, and the one-word deletion rationale that doesn't really present much of anything, this should quite possibly be closed speedily. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - don't have anything to add that hasn't already been written but commenting in the hope of WP:SNOW Spiderone 22:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2020 (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.