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 delete. I see this was listed for rescue by a COI editor and a bunch of rescue regulars voted to keep with assertive arguments. I'm not going to give those votes much weight. The delete side has given a detailed source analysis showing they fall short and has reviewed their votes after improvement. Consensus to delete is therefore solid Spartaz Humbug! 07:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Cary S. Cox

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

Cary S. Cox (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He was born, he got married, he invented a "raisin seeder, a cotton gin, and a pressure fruit grinder"; he died. There is a claim in the article that he is most famous for his inventions, but six of seven article sources are all patent office entries or similar. There is no independent coverage to prove the claim of his notability. The best I fond in a search was a mention in Cotton Growing Review, (Volume 8 - Page 62). ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 02:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 02:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 02:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. -- Greg Henderson ( talk) 21:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete asserting that someone is notable doesn't make it so. The sources do not appear to exist that show that someone actually took note. There is no evidence that these inventions were successful, influential, or were produced at all. Vexations ( talk) 11:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - A non-notable inventor, does not meet WP guidelines for GNG. Netherzone ( talk) 16:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Additional comment per: an editor's request for a second look: my !vote is still delete, I say that without hesitation. Netherzone ( talk) 12:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC) reply
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the difference between trivial and significant coverage. You can read about that in WP:RS. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 04:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 03:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the patents by themselves aren't really notable. What's needed is independent, in-depth coverage, by reliable sources. Glendoremus ( talk) 04:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Patents by themselves are not notable. There is no coverage on this guy from independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. In addition, the inventions themselves probably aren't notable either. -- Danre98( talk^ contribs) 15:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Still delete. All they are is an obituary listing him as a merchant (note: not an inventor), patent announcements, a gravefinder, and an articles of incorporation. I don't find that any of those tells the significance of his inventions (per WP:ANYBIO criteria 2) so no. I also find that it is all trivial coverage (bar the obituary, which is routine coverage), so it also still fails WP:GNG. -- Danre98( talk^ contribs) 12:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC) reply
In order for Cox to get notability from inventing stuff, his inventions actually have to work (or be useful) and have an impact on the world (or part of it) in some way. In order for him to get it from having a company (being a "merchant"), he needs to have more than one article about a raisin fire. Finally, the obituary (and articles of incorporation) is WP:ROUTINE. -- Danre98( talk^ contribs) 16:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC) reply
I agree with Greywalls that the sources improve WP:V but not notability. -- Danre98( talk^ contribs) 00:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Greghenderson2006, you have been asked several times to identify yourself as a COI involved editor. Netherzone ( talk) 23:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC) reply
No problem Netherzone. We have the COI on the talk page and it is already on the main page. How would you propose to do it here? -- Greg Henderson ( talk) 23:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC) reply
As another editor has requested, when you weigh in on your own COI articles in an AfD discussion, clearly state after your !vote, "I have a conflict of interest with this article." That transparancy helps non-involved editors understand your contributions within the discussion/debate with deeper understanding. It's no different than the way transparency as a principle works in any other area within one's life. Simple. Netherzone ( talk) 23:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Got it. I'll add "I have a conflict of interest with this article" in my AfD discussions.-- Greg Henderson ( talk) 23:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Greghenderson2006, the veracity of your statement just above this one is undermined by your unwillingness to declare your COI in your edits, as in your last one in this AfD where you listed with Rescue Squad without declaring. You may want consider reading WP:CANVAS. Netherzone ( talk) 21:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Let me add it there as well. -- Greg Henderson ( talk) 22:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply
I can't see two of the sources as they are paywalled and the third one ("B") has him as a trivial mention. I'd prefer to have another editor give their opinion on the sources. -- Danre98( talk^ contribs) 01:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply
I looked at two, they are just perfunctory patent announcements. Trivial coverage. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 21:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Hmm, thanks. Danre98( talk^ contribs) 01:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Nope. It is still just a bunch of perfunctory patent announcements and a very short obituary. Some of the claims did not check out for the sources provided, for example the DOB is not included in the Marietta Georgia article (which is about his father, not the son who is the article subject). ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 23:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Regarding the birthday and place, I found and added his obituary- so it is cited now. Lightburst ( talk) 00:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC) reply
User:ThatMontrealIP I have added more about his company, i found several obituaries. I also find that he is found in many publications as far away as Indiana. The books I have found are only perfunctory, but I have found more substantial items in newspapers. Lightburst ( talk) 23:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply
I'll look at it in a little bit. This is a last minute thing. Danre98( talk^ contribs) 23:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Lightburst, I have taken another look. No he is not notable, millions of patents have been filed, and announced in publications, few have long-lasting impact, and these certainly do not. WP:PATENTS states: Noting the existence of patents or patent applications is a common form of puffery for businesses. Avoid giving too much emphasis to their existence or contents. This article is a blatant example of that exaggeration. The inflated sense of importance of this individual has grown to comical proportions. We should not be squeezing minuscule drops of raisin juice out of every trivial mention of a person's life to substantiate their importance. Even if he were "famous for his inventions" as the article states, which he is not, fame is not equivalent to notability. Basing articles on such trivia compromises the integrity of the encyclopedia. Netherzone ( talk) 10:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP Scientific America and others writing about his makes him notable. They don't mention every invention, had to be significant accomplishments. Dream Focus 00:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC) reply
See Scientific American Back then, it was a four page weekly paper focused on the happenings at the US Patents Office. Appearing in the latest happenings is like appearing in the crime blotter, obituaries, and other routine announcement. So, despite the big name now, it falls under triviality. It doesn't carry anything like the weight of being featured as an article today. Graywalls ( talk) 08:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete His patents haven't been substantially been covered in any substance in intellectually independent secondary sources. A summary in Scientific American back when they were weekly and focused on publishing the happenings at the patent office does not represent the same thing as discussion in length about his patent. Having the patents granted by the patent office is a matter of drafting things in the way they're supposed to be written and following the procedures. There's no indication that he was notable whatsoever as an inventor; and there's no substantial notability worthy of a worldwide encyclopedia. Graywalls ( talk) 07:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC) So, the changes improves verifiability. He was born, was a merchant, applied for and received patents, then died. Graywalls ( talk) 22:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP No longer the article it was when nominated. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. Dream Focus is mistaken; a mention in the old weekly version of Scientific American was nothing special way back then. It seems from what I've read that the article creator's only goal on Wikipedia may be to promote his ancestors and his self-published book; but that's not what Wikipedia is for. — Unforgettableid ( talk) 15:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment: Untrue. I am the author and although COI, I published the article from WP:RS to highlight his patents and accomplishments. Nothing more. Scientific America and others writings about his makes him notable.-- Greg Henderson ( talk) 16:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Nah. They were mostly writing about his patents, not himself, so I don't see how it meets the WP:GNG. Per WP:ANYBIO, for an inventor to be considered notable, it (the inventions) has to have have some historical significance, and I just don't see that. Scientific America back in the day was focused on reporting what patents were filed, so it doesn't really give any notability (it's WP:ROUTINE). The Indiana thing is just one article (It's paywalled, so I can't tell how in depth it is. Seems to be more about his company than himself). The article is decent, but it belongs somewhere other than wikipedia under current notability policy (for example, one of them Wikipedia forks). -- Danre98( talk^ contribs) 16:37, 23 July 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cary_S._Cox&oldid=1110482358"