Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Wilcox

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Wilcox

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

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

Looking through the sourcing, I can see no real proof of notability. The little that shows merely supports that she received several patents...some of which I would be very, very surprised if they were ever produced. The sourcing generally led back to online advertising, not scholarly work. Qwirkle (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's useful to readers if we can debunk the myth published in sources like this. PamD 11:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you think most “sources like [that]” came from? Here, of course. We could better handle that by adding it to the list of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Nothing in the article as I found it was true, and it is still blaringly inaccurate, and always will be, by the look of it. Qwirkle (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No: that "9 times" piece was cited in the Wikipedia article when it first came to mainspace in April 2018 as a student course assignment (though oddly it's now "dated" March 2020). PamD 05:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the word “most”.

Unless the piece were written as a Snopesian debunking, it would almost certainly continue to generate more nonsense. Qwirkle (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just getting patents does not make someone notable. If it did we would have a Wikipedia article on my father David K. Lambert who has more patents than Wilcox, and whose inventions actually were used in the auto industry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 17:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many sources that list her as the inventor of the car heater such as [1] [2] [3]. This is sufficient for establishing notability per WP:GNG. Also, the actual patents should establish that this is not a hoax. W 42 19:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One day in 1882, Maria Beasely looked out at the sea and said, "People should, like, stop dying in huge transportation disasters." And then she invented life rafts. Beasely also invented a machine for making barrels, and it made her really fucking rich. That’s a source you think we should use?

Three sources that claim she invented automobile heaters, when the patent clearly shows her system, such as it is, was intended for railcars and streetcars....and not just any of them, but only for the decreasing minority with fixed axles. Qwirkle (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing is not ideal, but is sufficient for establishing her notability because it shows secondary sources providing significant coverage of her. What type of car that the patent is for is not relevant. What matters is that sources establish her invention as being the basis for modern car heaters and their coverage of her makes her notable. W 42 04:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

”Not ideal?” They’re complete dreck. Factually wrong, unsourced, and possibly wikicircular. The idea that this had anything to do with modern auto heaters is simply wrong, and any source that doesn’t understand that is suspect...at very best. It was a rather poor attempt to design something suitable heating for passenger rail coaches by placing a fire under the exit; as you can imagine it didn’t get too much traction. Other, working hydronic (rail) car heaters were designed and actually built before it. It was not an innovation. Qwirkle (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is your source for her not being the inventor of the car heater? There are plenty of higher quality sources out there that discuss her: Mothers and Daughters of Invention by Autumn Stanley, a post by the Museum of American Speed recognizing her, and Women of Invention By Charlotte Montague. W 42 11:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gentle reader, please note that the first source mentioned notes a different person’s invention of a car heater in 1870, more than twenty years before; ask what, if any, qualifications the second has; and please look at the other ~~potboilers~~deeply scholarly works of the third source’s author.

This is without even taking a few minutes to use a patent search engine, which might show a considerable number of “car heaters”.Qwirkle (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is definitely the same Margaret Wilcox, correct name, time period, and location. Margaret Wilcox did not invent all car heaters, she invented the concept of using the engine's heat to heat passengers. This is well established by the sources. For the second source, the Museum of American Speed is an authority on the history of American automobiles and is therefore reliable. For the third source, the fact that you don't like the book doesn't take away the fact that it's a reliable published work. Do you have an actual source that she isn't the inventor of this car heater or is your argument entirely original research? The point is that she meets WP:GNG and therefore merits inclusion in wikipedia. W 42 18:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which is to say the “sources” named are completely wrong. You can, in fact, read the patent and see that her system, such as it is, uses fuel, not engine heat, and that the innovation is a very, very, very particular way of running a hot water pump. No OR about it; just read the ur-source. Qwirkle (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doing original analysis of primary sources to draw novel conclusions is the definition of original research. The fact that the sources do not agree with your conclusion does not stop them from having merit. If you can find a snopes debunking then we can weigh that against the weight of the existing sources. W 42 19:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually reading a source already in the article is not, by the least stretch of the imagination, “original research”, even in wiki’s peculiar use of the term. the idea that some of the internet fanboi and gee-whiz drivel cited above are strong sources that require serious debunking is, frankly, nonsense. Qwirkle (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I disagree with the removal of sourced information from an article without a general consensus just because you have a different POV, even if it is correct. With that being said, the patent is clearly for passenger rail cars. Was it modified to work in automobiles? I don't know. Someone have any sources where it says it was modified and used? --Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, of course it wasn’t used. It was not a particularly useful idea; more, in fact, a solution in search of a problem...it appears to use the design of a water heater already used for other purposes. As a matter ofsourcing, that depends on how far down the scale of internet glurge someone wants to go. Qwirkle (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure about this article yet; part of the problem is if the patents were successful and documented, they're likely to be done so in 100+ year old newspaper pieces which will be incredibly difficult to find. I note that the article was created as part of a student exercise supervised by Ian (Guettarda), so maybe he could give us some more information? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that is as true for rail and automotive patents. There’s a pretty continuous stream of trade periodicals, widely archived, and often available online. Since the AIA began digitizing old commercial stuff, it has become a lot less true for construction, as well. Qwirkle (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I really don't have anything to useful to add. I don't know more about the sourcing they relied on, or how to contact a student after this long. I'm also not going to weigh in on one side or the other, since I think I could be perceived as having a possible COI here. Guettarda (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The essential problem here is that we have an article about a (mythical) significant inventor, when the real subject is an internet hoax. That’s why the article is sourced largely to advertising. Admen (and adwomen, of course) love glurge. It’s catchy and it’s free.
The secondary problem for the article, but the big one for Wiki, is that it is a self-inflicted wound. Wiki Ed and other projects repeatedly create tendentious, poorly sourced articles like this, inexperienced writers and researchers checking each other’s work, where “peer review” might be better written as “the blind leading the blind.” Qwirkle (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should not be basing articles, particularly not biographies making claims for the subject, in adverts, patents and listicle blogs. Mccapra (talk) 06:05, 25 October 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.