Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana Loconto

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. L Faraone 01:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Loconto[edit]

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

I'm not sure why this particular tennis referee is notable as compared to all the others at List of tennis umpires. Consensus is that referees are not usually notable, even at the highest levels. Now if it's deemed that his inventing the first hand held scorecard computer makes him different than all the other non-notable referees, at least that "might" make some sense. Otherwise I can't really see this article as worthwhile to wikipedia. Most of the sources given are about bad behavior from players with Loconto as a peripheral mention because he happened to be the umpire when the players were naughty. I'm cool with it if everyone feels this one particular referee is more special than all the rest of the Gold badge ITF refs, but I want to see discussion that proves it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 06:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Autobiography with nothing to show he's different from any other umpire at major events.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Loconto invented the handheld computer used by referees [1], [2] and, to actually make an argument that has something to do with deletion policy, has recieved enough coverage to demonstrate notabiilty under WP:BASIC,(se sources in article and above, plus [3].) --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles about him being a ref were in fringe local papers that I'm sure all referees get coverage in. The handheld referee computer was the one item that I wondered about from the start. However, IF that is enough to warrant his inclusion here, then this article needs to be rewritten with the main emphasis on that particular fact. The periferal info can be on the fact he was also a tennis ref. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that truly enough to show notability? Baseball umpires have had hand held devices for keeping track of balls, strikes, and outs for generations. What is truly new about his invention?204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fyunck(click) and 204: my own view is that notabilty is not so much a question of "whether it is deserved?" but instead is a proxy for the available sourcing, and to what extent an objective article can be written. This is why WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, our most central notability guidelines, are written the way they are. So while you ask me "is notable?", because of GNG, because of BASIC, I'm going to argue primarily in terms of "is there enough sourcing?" The question of whether specific achievements, such as the handheld, are important, is interesting, it's a fun question to ask "why is someone famous?" But most notability arguments on Wikipedia turn on the "is someone famous?" rather than some question of whether they deserve that mark.

But I do think there is promotional wording and other issues in the article. (e.g. "unbelieveable match") Rewrite away.

In terms of what I would say if I were writing the article from scratch? I have no particular issue, for example, with the inclusion of the Stahl award, which appears to hit a "signficant" bar even though I don't think it's "notable" all by itself. I don't think the desciption of the award is neutral, though. All or almost all of the interactions with individual players, which are a lot of what comes up when you search on Loconto, are pretty negligible individually, so I can imagine summarizing and so forth, but I wouldn't focus too much on that. I'm sure you get my meaning. Cheers, --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying. Still, from the "officiating" standpoint and the sources given, I would say this person does not meet gng. But, famous for an invention is in the eye of the beholder. I would hazard to guess that there are persons on wikipedia that have invented far more frivolous items and have been deemed notable because of those inventions. Your insight is usually pretty good on these things so I might bow to notability based on that invention. However, this article needs to read that way too, including the lead. It should be something like "Dana Loconto (Born March 7, 1949 in Gadsden, Alabama) invented the first hand held scorecard computer for tennis umpires." That's why he's notable so that should hit us right up front. We can then also include the fact he was a professional chair umpire and official, but those should be secondary to his invention. I should point out too that this article originated from Dana Loconto himself. He's a financial adviser and no doubt wants to make sure he can put this article on his resume as seen on his wordpress blog Dana needs new clients. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing he might be notable for is his invention, in which case the article needs a complete rewrite. However, he doesn't even mention it in his own resume which makes me believe it's not a notable invention and I didn't find the invention in any article that isn't about him.Mdtemp (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I also tried finding any kind of extensive sourcing for this "amazing invention." It pretty much doesn't exist so we won't be able to write about it in any detail except for the fact that Loconto invented it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per project consensus individual referees are not notable. Per above the 'invention' does not appear to be notable either.--Wolbo (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2014 (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.