Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Talbert

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 01:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Talbert

Unduly self-serving / self-promotion; lack of reliable sources; questionably noteworthy, as third-party coverage is not significat and is, itself, unsupported by facts/documentation (necessary in science); editor/author of the page appears to be posting his own autobiography, a clear violation of WP:SELFPUB E8 (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to posting to AfD, I searched for reliable secondary sources for this individual nothing significant.--E8 (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find anything relevant on google as well, delete per WP:N and WP:SPS Lets drinkTea 02:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - take out the over-bearing personal bio, and you're left with a notable inventor of a super carburetor, and other achievements. Article needs major and heavy-handed editing, but is still a keep. Esasus (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At your suggestion, I trimmed the page of all unsourced and self-published information. Note, the individual in question doesn't claim to be the inventor of the carburetor; he claims to have "worked" with it, his father having been the inventor. He's also researching topics that are flatly pseudoscience, zero point energy and the "permanent magnets" bunk (I removed both of these from the page today - in the History). He has no evidence supporting the claims made of the carburetor, and only minor, local coverage. Do you still feel this is article is notable, and if so, please explain why using the Wikipedia definition.--E8 (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First of all, I agree that this is a bit of a self-indulgent personal bio; however, that is not what moves me to delete. If you review the article there are probably 3 ares that might be considered for Notability."

Retail Experience - that is not that significant;
IT work - ditto; and
Carburetor Design - Here lies the potential Notability. Unfortunately, it appears as if his father did most of the work and that the device although it does save fuel, is not practical. I do not see evidence anyone is breaking down any doors to incorporate the device in future production vehicles - evidence of Notability as an engineer. The fact that it takes 2 minutes to achieve 60 mph and there are many other vehicles that can achieve speed and save fuel also do not point to his Notability as a engineer. I do not see evidence his work is being used to save fuel is an engineering breakthrough that will lead to other changes in the auto industry.

To further this, I see no evidence, "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." or "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" Sorry... ttonyb1 (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Should Gasoline Vapor, essentially a parallel article of this one, be proposed for AfD discussion as well? Speedy?~~--E8 (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gasoline Vapor, a parallel article of this one with the same self-publishing author, has been added to AfD discussion.--E8 (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - take out the over-bearing personal bio, and you're left with a notable inventor of a super carburetor, and other achievements. I had to totally redesign the entire system based on a conecpt that was never documented. I did that, made improvements and came up with a workable systems for new cars. Every patent I could come up with on the topic was not related to the current research. It was a daunting task. I only mention my father as he was an inventor of note in the sixties and seventies. It was his original design, but his design was not workable outside of a test facility. I made a working model using a 1981 Oldsmobile Delta. In accordance with the current philosophy should there be entries related to avaition on wikipedia apart from the Wright Brothers? Jtalbert (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.217.46 (talk) [reply]

Thank you for the clarification; clearly, given this admission by the author, the page is based on original research and should be removed.--E8 (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly every article in our encyclopedia is based on original research, and should be removed." Wikipedia does not publish original research; we do, however, publish articles based on it. The question (and our guideline) is, has this information been vetted by reliable sources? – 74 22:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COI article that doesn't meet WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2009 (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.