Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Heppelmann

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 delete. The keep votes have not provided a strong source based rebuttle to the delete analysis and, frankly, finger pointing and vague waves to a non policy based keep reason count for little.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

James Heppelmann

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

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

BLP does not meet

WP:NBIO- notability is inherited from his role at PTC (software company). MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In response to VAXIDICAE's suggestions that longer narratives might not be read, I have summarized the reasons that this proposed deletion does not fit Wikipedia's guidelines.
VAXIDICAE and MrsSnoozyTurtle pose the reason for deletion is based on the notion that association with a notable entity PTC (software company) does not mean Heppelmann too is notable, or more generally, a person does not inherit notability from a notable entity is defective in this case for a number of reasons.
This inherited notability test or a related hypothesis is not mentioned in
WP:NBIO
so it is an opinion.
In the case of leaders who have led notable entities over long periods of time, through multiple new product cycles, like Heppelmann or
Steve Job and Apple
, both are leaders who led their successful companies through vital product transitions – Jobs from MAC, to MacBook, to iPod, to iPhone, and Hepplemann from CAD, to PLM, to IoT to AR. Creating new products is a highly respected skill admired by and of interest to both consumers, and consumer product developers, and industrial computer scientists/product developers.
If a person does not inherit some degree of notability from the notability of the organization for whom they lead or work, why are so many Apple employees included on Wikipedia? It would be an unfair application of Wikipedia’s guidelines to delete Heppelmann’s page and leave Apple employee pages of lesser or equal notability on Wikipedia. Also, the reader will find a few thousand people of equal or lesser notability on the page People in Technology.
Heppelmann is notable because he is a co-author of three books on advanced technologies, Internet of Things (IoT) and Augmented Reality (AR) with Michael Porter a renowned academic at Harvard Business School.
This page was reviewed 10 months ago. One must ask, what is now the motivation behind the proposal for deletion compared to other alternatives? And this question should be sufficiently answered before deletion.
the subject meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability.
The citations are complete and sources reliable.

Stevep2007 (talk Stevep2007 (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE Side discussions that amount to what-aboutisms are distracting this discussion from the original claim that Heppelman is not notable because he cannot inherit notability from a notable entity PTC under which
WP:NBIO and facts to support the category of notability claim. Stevep2007 (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
bludgeoning the discussion. It's tiresome and it's increasingly likely no one will bother to read what you're saying if you continue to do so. Further, you already voted once above. That's all you get. VAXIDICAE💉 16:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:EQ. Stevep2007 (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:COI concerns here. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:COI, COI has no relevance here because the claim that you brought in the proposal for deletion was inherited notability. Stevep2007 (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:UAA, but this conversation doesn't belong here and if you can't substantiate it, you need to redact it. Thanks. VAXIDICAE💉 19:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The reason that lesser, equal or greater notability,
    WP:NBIO does not include specification or guidence on inherited notability the precedent of thousands of people of lesser and equal notability in similiar fields is relevant in makeing a decision. Stevep2007 (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect The subject is not notable enough to be considered independently notable. The page either needs to be deleted or redirected.
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/James_Heppelmann&oldid=1014947243"