Draft talk:Marcus Hays

Creating draft biography via AfC

I am Marcus Hays, the subject of this draft. I am disclosing my connection per WP:COI. No paid party (agency, freelance writer, PR firm, etc.) was involved in preparing this content, so no separate WP:PAID disclosure applies. I have not edited the mainspace article directly and am submitting this draft via Articles for Creation for independent review. UnboxedEV (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am a friend of the subject and helping understanding guidelines and editing his page, and submitting for an AFC review while following the required guidelines. If there is an unintentional error at my end, please let me know. JaceMal (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Notability

Greetings, I have worked on the draft again to address LLM use related concern. I also read LLM related guidelines and I share the concerns around issues related to verifiability. I am glad there is a firm stand against the use. I also read the notability guidelines for persons.

WP:BASIC presumes a person notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Its first bullet adds that where the depth of coverage in any one source is not substantial, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", while trivial coverage is not usually enough. As I intepret the guidelines, reliability is about editorial oversight and independence is not connected to subject (please correct me if my understanding is incorrect). I believe Marcus does meet that based on:

• "The power of Pi" (March 2011). DEVELOP3D is reliable because it is a print and digital product design magazine, published since 2008 by X3DMedia in London, with a named editor-in-chief, managing editor and consulting editor. This piece was written by Stephen Holmes, who is on the magazine's editorial staff, and hence is independent.

• "Reinventing the Wheel" and "Civic Type R AWD? Testing an Orbis/Honda Civic Type R With 100-HP 'E-Nitrous' AWD!" (2018). MotorTrend is a reliable source: it has been published since 1949 and runs its own instrumented tests. Both pieces are by Frank Markus, the magazine's technical director since 2003, so they are independent. They are counted as one source.

• "Why this Santa Rosa firm is betting big on AI data center cooling" (16 March 2026). The Press Democrat counts as reliable because it is a daily newspaper, and the one reliable sources noticeboard thread on it (2023) called it reliable. The article is by Jeff Quackenbush, on the North Bay Business Journal staff since 1999, which makes it independent.

• "3-D software key to designing many of today's consumer products" (13 February 2013). The San Jose Mercury News is reliable as a long-established daily newspaper. The link is to the Phys.org reprint, and the noticeboard position is that a reprint is judged by its original publisher. It was written by Steve Johnson, a Mercury News staff reporter, and is therefore independent.

• Live to Ride (2010), pp. 224 to 226. The book is reliable because it comes from Atria Books, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, and was reviewed by Kirkus. Its author, Wayne Johnson, has no known connection to Hays, so the book is independent.

• "Defensive Driving: A car for road warriors is unveiled at L.A. auto show" (14 January 1994). The Los Angeles Times is reliable: the perennial sources list treats it as generally reliable. This report on the Los Angeles auto show carries Dianne Klein's byline and is the paper's own news coverage, hence independent.

• "Ring Drive Suggests Future EV Powertrain" (11 April 2018). WardsAuto is reliable because it is an automotive trade publication that has been in print since 1924. The writer, Bob Gritzinger, was a senior editor there and later editor-in-chief, so the piece is independent.
• Popular Science, feature on human-powered transport, March 2009, pp. 65 to 66. Popular Science is reliable as a national general-interest magazine published since 1872. The feature is the magazine's own editorial content, with no connection to Hays, and so is independent.

• They are independent of each other. Eight different publishers, different writers, different decades. None is a rewrite of another.
• They agree on the facts. Design training, CALSTART, Lee Iacocca and EV Global Motors, Paul MacCready, PiMobility founded in 2000, the Pi and PiCycle, Bonneville, Orbis and the ring-drive wheel each appear in at least two independent sources.
• None is trivial in the sense WP:BASIC uses. The guideline's own examples of trivial coverage are a directory entry or a bare mention of someone's name and employer. Each source here states something about what he did.
• Together they cover a career. 1994 (Defender), 2000 to 2013 (PiMobility), 2018 onward (Orbis).

I also wanted to check if WP:CREATIVE could be applied. It names authors, artists, architects but makes space for "and other creative professionals". Not sure if that space was made intentionally or not but criterion 3 says such a person is likely to be notable if they created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or body of work, and that work has been "the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews".

Hays's two main works have each been the primary subject of independent periodical articles and reviews. For the Pi and PiCycle electric bicycle, the qualifying pieces are two hands-on reviews by Susan Carpenter in the Los Angeles Times (2007, 2009), the cover story in DEVELOP3D (March 2011) and a feature in Fast Company (2010). For the Orbis ring-drive wheel, they are Frank Markus's instrumented test and technology column in MotorTrend (2018), a report in WardsAuto (2018) and commentary in Core77 (2018). These count because each appeared in a periodical with its own editorial staff, none was written by Hays or his company, and in each the bicycle or the wheel is the subject of the piece and not a passing mention. They also read as honest assessments, because the writers tried the products and reported the faults along with the praise. Carpenter found the 2007 Pi "more aesthetic than athletic, but overall, it was an impressive machine" and noted that its batteries sat high in the frame. In 2009 she called the PiCycle "an exceptional art piece that is both practical and affordable", yet reported that the motor needed help from her pedaling on the steepest part of her test hill. Roy M. Wallack, in the same paper's gear column, rated it "stable, fast, exhilarating and attention-getting" but "very heavy at 60 pounds". Fast Company wrote that the bikes "still aren't cheap", Wired's print edition said "what you're really paying for is flashy design", and the North Bay Bohemian wrote that "the only obstacle with the PiCycle is its price tag". On the wheel, MotorTrend recorded that its test session ended when a fuse blew and doubted the long-term durability of the rollers that run on the rim, and Core77 called the wheel "technically impressive" while saying it would be less attractive if fitting it meant removing the rear seats. The two Los Angeles Times reviews are counted as one source, and so are the two MotorTrend pieces.