Talk:Hugo Barra

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Does this article read too much like a résumé, and should it be

Thanks for taking this approach, a better way of resolving.Wintertanager (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And if anyone disagrees with my removing these tags and requesting discussion first, here is user 79.97.226.247's edit history to his talk page (which he keeps 'blanked'). It is riddled with warnings, blocks, edit warring, etc.: 79.97.226.247 Talk HistoryWintertanager (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And here are Wintertanager's PR contributions:

M. T. Carney. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I dispute those pages being called 'PR' contributions without any explanation or specifity. Have worked hard to create BLPs that are neutral, encyclopedic, well sourced and written, and covering subjects meeting all notability requirements. Wintertanager (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the tags are fully warranted and Wintertanager appears to be writing promotional articles about tech executives as 79.97.226.247 stated in this ANEW report. I believe Wintertanager should be topic banned from articles about tech execs. The Dissident Aggressor 15:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would love for someone to tell me what exactly is promotional about this article. A specific sentence, phrase, structural issue - anything... I thought my tech bio articles were valuable contribution to WP - who knows maybe they aren't. In resignation, Wintertanager (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good example is the name-dropping you do throughout your articles. Adding "working for Android founder Andy Rubin" does nothing but sound like abject puffery. He worked on android. Period. No need to list the org chart unless you're puffing. The Dissident Aggressor 00:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I think therein lies the confusion. From my perspective, that is simply a fact: he worked for Andy Rubin. But from your POV that sounds like puffery. Okay, fair enough, remove it. But please don't accuse me of puffery in including it. He did indeed work for Rubin. It can be difficult when you are writing a bio about a successful person to say things that are simply true - like he gave the commencement speech at MIT - without sounding like puffery. I better understand your perspective. Wintertanager (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"led by Google’s Vic Gundotra" - understand you feel this is name-dropping and will respect the edit, but Gundotra's had a very strong influence on Barra's career and connects the dots for someone interested in him. Again to me it is just a relevant fact: he worked for Gundotra. I understand much more about Barra's career arc knowing that. The general theme for me in observing your edits is: understand a lot of them & helpful to my own editing, but in some cases think we are cutting into the bone of the article. Wintertanager (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the big question here is how this BLP qualifies to be in WP per GNG? Atsme☯^Consult 01:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barra is clearly notable. That's not in question. The Dissident Aggressor 03:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Barra is the top and most visible Google Exec (the public face of Android product, both hardware and software - which itself meets notability), poached by the now largest smartphone maker in China, Xiaomi. He has singlehandedly driven the penetration of Xiaomi throughout Southeast Asia and internationally. He is all over business and tech press; the page really needs to be expanded upon IMO Wintertanager (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a quick google news search of Hugo Barra Xiaomi - several hundred articles in the past month give you a sense of the Barra's notability. I would love to contribute more about him - think he is a fascinating guy in a space that is exploding (I think Xiaomi is officially the fastest growing 'start up' in the world) - but honestly am discouraged to the point of apathy. I love the fact that you've identified some things that sound like puffery to you - I disagree on most of them but at least it helps me understand the POV. Wintertanager (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summoned by bot. I see no major issues with this article to warrant such a tag. Can it be improved upon? Of course. But that would apply to almost every article in WP. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Cwobeel (talk) because I too, do not see such issues that warrants such a tag. I too agree that every article could obviously be improved in some way or form. Now, I honestly don't see Hugo Barra's WP page written as a resume. If you went to another living biography, such as an actor(ess) or a musician, you can see titles that they've been in they've sung in, but that doesn't necessarily make it a full on resume. All in all, I do not see this as such a resume, but ultimately as to the significance of what he has put into those companies. Nick2crosby (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summoned by bot. I can't see where any issues have been raised which justify the tag. The facts seem to be properly sourced. Is there significant information that is not included in the article? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based both on group consensus and page revisions since tag was added, removing resume tag. Wintertanager (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]