Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Francis Lyon

:{{la|Richard Francis Lyon}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Francis_Lyon Stats])

:({{Find sources|Richard Francis Lyon}})

User:Dicklyon is the user himself and he's the main contributor. The subject rattles off patents he's got and designates himself a pioneer but there's no secondary sources validating his notability. Simple self promoting article. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

:Please see the talk page, where my involvement has been assessed. If I had written the article, it would be much better. This IP editor who wrote it does not even resemble my style of writing. I have avoided adding to it; the edits I did were done logged in, and besides the initial stub, which I did as a newbie editor before I understood that to be a bad idea, they were just corrections. I can provide more secondary sources if someone wants to work on that issue. Dicklyon (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• 'Comment He sounds like one smart cookie, but the article's references are mostly patents and things he wrote, which clearly cannot establish notability on their own. How many instances can be found of significant coverage of the person in reliable and independent sources? In what ways is WP:BIO satisfied? Edison (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The heavy involvement by you is only something that could be contributing to the issue. The main issue is that the subject is lacking general notability as far as I can find. In depth secondary coverage in reliable sources are required. In other words, what sets this person apart from a bunch of other people who holds a dozen patents or so? Why is this person noteworthy of encyclopedia page? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Per WP:CREATIVE, he would qualify with the invention of the optical mouse. He has been made a Fellow of the IEEE amongst other things. I'm sure teh article could use a good clean up and the referencing could probably be done better but notability is met. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment This article is clearly a promotion piece for the subject. That he was an IEEE 2003, and he's one of the hundreds for 2003 and every year, a fairly large number of people are made fellow, so he's just a name in a list. http://www.ieee.org/membership_services/membership/fellows/chronology/fellows_2003.html IEEE 2003 fellow list. Anyone who gets a patent is an inventor because to be granted a patent, it must be something unique and not addressed by prior art. Why is this person distinguishably notably from a sea of people who holds patents and on a fellow list for their respective industry organization ? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Canteloupe2, you are not adding anything new when you respond like that to everyone else's contribution. We have seen your opinion, and your reasons. Enough now? ☺? Noetica^Tea? 09:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. The fact that the subject of this article is also an active and extremely knowledgeable Wikipedia editor should have no bearing on the status of the present article. I cannot recall, in my interactions with Dicklyon, ever seeing him make reference to this article for any purpose whatsoever – though he could have been excused for doing so, to lend authority to his judgements at RM discussions and the like. An accomplished engineer, notable for several inventions that pioneer current technologies, and a noted theoretician of image processing and related areas who happens to have a flair for technical writing. No problem at all with retention of this article. Noetica^Tea? 09:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. The mouse and other inventions should satisfy notability, no problem, but I would like to see more refs to improve the quality of the piece. Neotarf (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Keep IEEE fellow is much more important than merely receiving a patent. I don't think we usually consider it definitive as sole evidence, except if a Life Fellow, but it certainly contributes to notability, along with the other material. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

: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.