Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Klarer

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. I expect that this closure might be contested. But we have two very different evaluations of the sources presented, either they are reliable and significant or they are PR churnalism and inadequate. In this case, I could relist the discussion hoping for a clearer consensus but I'm going to dismiss newly created accounts and base my closure on the opinions of editors who I know can properly assess the quality of the sources and whether or not they can demonstrate the notability of the article subject. According to them, they don't. No penalty for interested editors who can start over in Draft space and submit their work for an AFC review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Klarer

[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)

BLP of a successful businessman lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. There is nothing in this article to indicate that the subject meets our notability criteria. Mccapra (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Mccapra (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject has a full length profile in the Korea Herald which is the leading newspaper of Korea. I count at least six regional newspapers who have also covered the subject and one major corporation's news arm.2603:8080:2500:9F2:2DB0:1760:5043:A8F2 (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Medicine, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Churnalism, PR, passing mentions and authored pieces. Mccapra (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went through source by source and would encourage you to do the same to substantiate your claims. I agree that a number of the PR sources can be removed.

https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20150616001038 - Full length feature in major newspaper

https://ucsdguardian.org/2014/05/11/bridging-health-and-diagnostics/ - Full length feature in regional newspaper

https://insights.samsung.com/2017/09/11/ability-wearables-leverages-smartwatches-for-fatigue-management/ - Full length feature in major corporation's news arm

https://www.sandiegored.com/en/news/156886/US-Based-Startups-are-Looking-to-Outsource-Software-Projects-to-Mexican-Programmers - Full length feature in regional newspaper

https://imparcialoaxaca.mx/opinion/730735/trasnsexenal/ - Article in regional newspaper

https://oaxaca.quadratin.com.mx/empresa-datyra-abrira-sucursal-en-parque-tecnologico-de-la-utm/ - Article in regional newspaper

https://www.sdbj.com/finance/venture-capital/san-diego-becomes-desired-hub/ - Article in regional newspaper

https://www.entrepreneur.com/leadership/millionaire-fast-track-27-ceos-under-27/293530 - Award 2603:8080:2500:9F2:2DB0:1760:5043:A8F2 (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Korean Herald source is ok, the next source is in a WordPress engine so reliability is dubious, Samsung's Insights is a mention, the San Diego Red is an interview, the next two Spanish sources are mentions, the next is a brief quotation, the Entrepreneur is a listing. This does not (quite) pushes the subject so that it meets
notability guidelines. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 16:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Once again, a trivial analysis of the sources will show that you are drawing incorrect conclusions. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCSD_Guardian UCSD Guardian, second source, has been deemed to be notable by our own notability criteria and the publishing engine is of no consequence.

A mention is defined as '"In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.' per the notability guidelines above. The Samsung Article is clearly a multipage article entirely about the subject. It is not a trivial mention.

And interview falls under '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.'

The Spanish sources are both significant coverage with one source being entirely about the subject's business ventures.

Entrepreneur.com is an Award not a listing. 2603:8080:2500:9F2:2DB0:1760:5043:A8F2 (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deletion arguments are weak 72.182.78.215 (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)— 72.182.78.215 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~ ~~- clearly passes notability guidelines and arguments by other editors are weak / fallacious.~~ (striking duplicate Keep comment. You can only "vote" once even if your IP address changes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - Reliable information. It reflects the work in each contribution made.2603:8080:2500:9F2:2DB0:1760:5043:A8F2 (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC) — 2603:8080:2500:9F2:2DB0:1760:5043:A8F2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines; I couldn't find sources that are
in depth. Most sources are press releases, or mentions. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 17:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - The article mentions him as a writer to Inc. and Forbes and other platforms. I found another Forbes article but not sure if it is self written or not. Yolandagonzales (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another reputable publication, Information Week (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InformationWeek), published an article listing the subject's business venture as a top startup to watch. https://www.informationweek.com/it-leadership/9-healthcare-tech-startups-to-watch 2603:8080:2500:9F2:2DB0:1760:5043:A8F2 (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also found a second publication that covers the establishment of the subject's offices in Mexico.

https://www.nvinoticias.com/oaxaca/general/empresa-norteamericana-se-instalara-en-la-utm-en-huajuapan/123374 2603:8080:2500:9F2:2DB0:1760:5043:A8F2 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - San Diego Business Journal, Entrepreneur magazine, Forbes and Inc are very reputable sources. This means there is significant coverage and the sources are reliable which makes him notable according to Wikipedia rules.Caspure (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC) — Caspure (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have included the notability guidelines below to ensure all editors understand and follow the guidelines.

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[1] Shortcut WP:SIGCOV<?/br>
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM. Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[2] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

"Sources"[3] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[4] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[5]

2603:8080:2500:9F2:2DB0:1760:5043:A8F2 (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have a number of new IPs from Texas participating just in this AFD so I hope we can get some editors experienced in AFD discussions to offer their analysis of sources that are present in the article and brought up in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, there is no objective argument that can be made against the notability of the subject. Do you have the authority to needlessly extend the discussion? 2603:8080:2500:9F2:A52F:1468:9667:12AE (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is "Yes", I do have the authority. And if I was to close this discussion right now, it wouldn't be to Keep this article. I would like to hear from more experienced editors what they think, we already know what editors with an apparent COI believe. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I need you to substantiate your claims with objective facts. The subject has about 8 valid sources in the most reputable magazines in the world barring the NYT or WSJ. All I hear from you is an opinion without basis. 2603:8080:2500:9F2:A52F:1468:9667:12AE (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any claims. I am one of the possible closers of this discussion, not a participant. I didn't offer a "vote" of what I think should happen, I just stated what I think was likely to happen. I assess the arguments made and base my closure on policy and the strength of the arguments put forth, especially by editors who have a great deal of experiencing evaluating articles and sources. But I also can be influenced by editor behavior during the discussion and was not impressed with your multiple votes (unless you share a computer with a family member or co-worker). But whether this article is kept, redirected, merged or deleted, I have no opinion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are a couple of sources meeting
WP:DEPTH of coverage (e.g., small blurbs). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Profile stands strong with his notable achievements as a machine learning researcher and entrepreneur. Reputable sources (Forbes and Inc) affirm his significance in both fields, underscoring his contributions to technology and business innovation. Victor Gomez (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC) — Gommtz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. In 2024, everyone knows
our consensus. We are a charity, not Forbes. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2024 (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.