Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William C. Pfefferle

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. Spinning Spark 17:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William C. Pfefferle

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

This is not an article, it's a résumé or CV. It appears to have been created by a single-issue editor—only this man and one of the products he worked on—perhaps in an effort to drive traffic (work) to an individual working as a consultant. Mr. Pfefferle appears to have been a prolific inventor in his field, and the "Professional career" section includes links (of dubious permissibility) to the companies where he's worked, but there is zero support for any of the glowing praise for the man, nor is there evidence of notability as we define it on Wikipedia. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C13:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If he's notable, I agree it would need a total rewrite. Note he died in 2010 [1]. (Obit also appeared in NY Times, but as a paid obit so do not count for notability.[2]) 1990 inductee to New Jersey Inventors Hall of Fame [3], which is likely not enough by itself.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This one presents an interesting challenge. A publication on a Department of Energy website states, "The earliest work on what is now termed catalytic combustion was conducted by Pfefferle at Engelhard Corporation in the 1970s and introduced the use of both catalytic and non-catalytic combustion reactions in a temperature range amenable to both." But Pfefferle may be a co-author of this publication (it's hard to tell for sure).[4] Search is also complicated because there's another Pfefferle who's a Yale ChemE prof working in similar areas (perhaps his daughter or other relative?)[5][6] Seems indeed to be connected with important work; it remains to be seen.whether there is enough substantial coverage in reliable sources to cross the notability threshold.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article appears as a CV, and we have a reliable Obit. Do the patents (reliable in their own way) show some kind of notability? They certainly prove Pfefferle was inventive - it seems remarkable with such major work on fuel catalysis that he's not a household name. Would be happy to cut down/copy edit the article if we have enough sources to make it keepable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: [7] may provide something relevant, though yet again the subject is one of the authors. Star Garnet (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's what I had suspected: Pfefferle was highly important and seen as such by the company. Ironically they took no thought for Wikipedia's Notability criteria, and in this document simply, frankly and I am sure honestly tell it like it is: Pfefferle invented the field of catalytic combustion, and it's amazing the rest of us never heard about it. The famous fellow we forgot to remember. I think we should keep this topic, somehow, if only by including the core invention and his name in Catalytic combustion or something. Remarkable guy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am always frustrated in knowing what the right thing to do with inventors is, exactly. I realize that patents in and of themselves are not indicators of notability, but Google Scholar does show a number of them cited a nontrivial number of times: [8]. He also seem to be coauthor on this paper, which has about 50 citations and this with about 40. I'm not sure if someone can speak to whether that is a high number of citations in the field at the time of publication, but it sure seems so. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it ought to be enough, specially as WP:BLP no longer applies in his case. I have boldly gone ahead and created Catalytic combustion today, with brief mention of Pfefferle. I guess I still feel we should keep. One thing: the paper cited is on the Department of Energy website, which ought to be a reliable source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2012 (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.