Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frances Hugle

Add links
Source: 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The result was speedy keep WP:SK#1 as nomination withdrawn "and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted". Any proposal for mergers can be taken through the usual channel. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Hugle

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

Lack of sufficient reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. In addition, request of its main contributor to have article deleted on the talk page. Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further - (by way of explanation) - there is no doubt (in my mind) that the subject was influential or that her ideas were notable. Do I believe we should have an article about her? Absolutely. Do I think there is a short supply of sources? Absolutely. And this is where I have a problem with WP:N - either she needs to have received coverage in reliable sources or her inventions / ideas (tied to her) need to have received coverage in reliable sources. WP:INHERIT specifically deals with people and their products and says one does not inherit notability from the other. So do we cite her patents (about which there are a couple of sources) then enforce WP:INHERIT and suggest she doesn't inherit notability from them? Or do we cite her ideas (about which there are few sources) and assert notability that way, but fail because there aren't enough sources to back the claims? On balance, my opinion was that there was enough to make some solid, substantive claims in a new history section at tape-automated bonding but not enough (yet) to substantiate a whole article about the inventor. Stalwart111 23:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sufficient sources to show the importance of her work, and her activities go beyond tape beyonding. She was a significant figure in the early history of the transistor, and has coverage in multiple sources - normally in conjunction with her husband, but she is also one of the only women involved in the early days of transistor history, and she made a significant contribution to the field which continues to be recognised in the historical record, so she passes WP:ANYBIO. It is also clear that there are sufficient sources to create the article, as except for a few statements which could be trimmed, the article is well referenced to reliable sources as it stands. - Bilby (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should also mention that the "request of its main contributor to have article deleted" feels like the result of ongoing goading - I'm certainly uncomfortable with that as reason for deletion. - Bilby (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article was the subject of a recent merge discussion that kept the article: see Talk:Frances Hugle#Proposed merge and redirect to tape automated bonding. In that discussion, it was recognized that there are not many sources about Hugle. There are sources that credit her with tape automated bonding, and that should entitle her to an article under WP:CREATIVE. With such sparse sources about Hugle, the article could never say much about her.
The back story for this article is unfortunate. Cheryl Hugle, Frances Hugle's daughter, started the article through AfC, and it was moved to mainspace. Ultimately, several claims in the article were challenged either because they did not have sources or drew conclusions from primary sources. For example, the article suggested that Hugle should be credited with the invention of the integrated circuit ("In 1956, two years before Noyce or Kilby, Frances Hugle filed a patent in which she described how to fabricate an integrated circuit") and the microprocessor ("In 1967, Frances Hugle filed a patent in which she described how to make a microprocessor"). See, for example, Talk:Frances Hugle#Notable inventions section and Talk:Frances Hugle#Notable inventions section (2). Irrespective of whether the statements are true, we don't have have secondary sources that make those statements.
Some aspects of the statements are true. The 1956-filed patent describes isolation by distance -- the component isolation idea that Kilby suggested. Hugle apparently did use polysilicon, there may have been a reference to her efforts by those who proposed the polysilicon gate, but it seems that many others were involved in developing the semiconductor process used for the first microprocessor. Cheryl, however, read in some conclusions about the patent: n and p material means transistors. Editors protested about such conclusions and pointed out that secondary sources should be used; Cheryl did not agree. Hugle's later isolation patent may be a cornerstone of historic or even modern semiconductor processes. That is a separate statement from describing how to make a microprocessor; the latter requires more than a process description. Hugle's patents may been used in the i4004's process, but to make such a claim about the i4004's process, WP requires secondary sources that make that assessment. WP editors may not survey the field and state their own conclusions.
The conflict continued at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Frances Hugle.
Cheryl, an inexperienced WP editor, disagrees with other editors and believes those editors are misinterpreting WP policies. When the direction of the article didn't go her way, she deleted the article's contents.[1] Now, Cheryl is happy to delete the article due "to the limitations of this community" and because it popularizes a view of semiconductor development that is the result of a conspiracy of her father, semiconductor company founders, and journalists.[2] Cheryl's position merits little weight under WP rules. Cheryl's claims may be true, but that is not our concern here.
Although I agree that the source are sparse, Frances Hugle has done some significant work. There are some secondary sources that tell us her TAB work was important. The Smithsonian suggests another patent is significant. A small article about her is appropriate, but under WP rules, that article should not make unsourced conclusions.
Glrx (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This poor article has been though more hell than 99.9% of the articles here. If it was a delete candidate, it would have happened many moons ago. It is NOT a delete, any more that 10,000 others, it just has problems. The merge idea has already been nixed. It there was such a thing, this article should be quarantined from a group of editors who do more well intentioned harm that good, Then allow it to be cured by less well intentioned but more competent editors. -- :- ) Don 01:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You probably want an official reason. Someone with this number of significant patents should be notable, Period. Just like a rock artist with albums or director with films. And, if they are not a patent mill, which did not exist at that time, the patents should be included in the article. -- :- ) Don 02:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was an edit conflict and I was trying to respond to the comment before the one immediately above so here is my comment:

First off, the technical analysis presented here is really cr.. and totally off base. I have already promised to clear up certain misperceptions regarding the statements in the article and I should keep that promise regardless of the article's fate so I will do that on my user Talk page at some point.

Now, in regard to this:

"...because it popularizes a view of semiconductor development that is the result of a conspiracy of her father, semiconductor company founders, and journalists"

How does deleting the article do that?

What utter nonsense! Regardless of my views on why this history has largely been buried for decades, I have not sought to popularize any such thing with this article nor by approving of its deletion!! This quote represents the type of loose and baseless assumption that makes me cringe at the thought of this community purporting to write anybody's history. In fact, editors such as the one responsible for this quote have contributed other baseless and misinforming (technical) inferences within the article's text.

The only thing I did was attempt to reveal that a female scientist and engineer substantially contributed to the development of the semiconductor industry by indicating what was contributed. That is an indisputable fact except here. Yet, because of the type (and frequency) of wide angle and baseless accusations such as quoted above, I really hope this article can be put to rest (deleted).

Yes, I do believe substantial crimes were committed, but I would never assert this in such an article. (Many of the views and info I shared on the Talk page were for the benefit of any editors who wished to do additional searches and wanted ideas for where to look for more of the story.)

What can I say? I think this whole thing is nuts. Probably if we were face to face, most of these ridiculous notions would never make it to consciousness.

And one more, "Cheryl, however, read in some conclusions about the patent: n and p material means transistors."

Nope!! I actually intended to dissect this whole thing and demonstrate that the only claims made in the article were those that were direct paraphrases of the source text. As above stated, I will do this eventually on my user Talk page. Maybe once the article is gone (no reason for contention), what is atually being stated and why will be easier to perceive.

189.172.40.237 (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the fate of this article, one of the people who recently became involved deserves to be highly commended. Her rewrite of parts of the article considerably improved its cogency and readability. Thank you Bilby! You exemplify what I had initially hoped WP editors would contribute, real and necessary improvements.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle[reply]

  • Keep. I'm the AfD nominator changing my opinion based on the keep arguments above; in this case I think it is permissible to keep the article despite the lack of secondary sources for the reasons given.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Keep I initially thought it would be best to merge this article based on the lack of significant coverage of Hugle. However, after other editors and I made an effort to search for sources to support her notability, and that issues with the heavy reliance of the article on primary sources and original research were cleared up, I can more confidently support keeping this article. I'm not particularly pleased with Cheryl's comments above, as she continues to insist that many editors are acting in ignorance or in bad faith, and seem unconvinced that the Wikipedia community can write up any historical biography. Although she has disagreed, her opinions about Wikipedia and other editors misrepresent other editors' behaviors and are hyperbolic. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:58, 12 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frances_Hugle&oldid=1142197253"