Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Smidt

Add links
From 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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Smidt

[edit]

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

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

i fail to see how Smidt is notable on his own, virtually all sources discussing him, do so directly in relation to Harbor Freight, if at all. This should be deleted and redirected to the company. PRAXIDICAE🌈 09:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the sources you listed, and aside from Bloomberg, all of those are absolutely trivial mentions that do not contribute to WP:GNG. That other individuals have articles is not a reason to keep this one. - Aoidh (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at each of the links again and they appear to support WP:GNG. For example, the WSJ, Bloomberg, Inside Philanthropy, and LA Weekly articles are all directly about the subject, and no original research is needed to extract the content. These articles themselves are original research and not from a newswire service. This appears to meet the definition of WP:SIGCOV. The articles discuss notable items about the subject beyond his work at his company. The links also cover the subject over several years, which shows that the subject has attracted attention over a significant period of time. David Stargell (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination, pr and press releases, fails WP:SIGCOV. Shaniquagreen (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Press release concerns mentioned above aside, that is absolutely trivial coverage and in no way contributes to the notability of the subject. If this is the calibre of coverage that is being used to justify the article, it is clear there isn't enough there to have an article. - Aoidh (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references in the article prior to this discussion appeared to support WP:GNG. The additional article from NBC LA (provided through a news service, not a PR firm) is additional support for what appears to have been sufficient to show WP:GNG in the existing article per WP:BEFORE. Item D in WP:BEFORE indicates that a basic Google search or Google News search should provide sufficient sources to prove notability. In this case, both a Google search and a Google News search show a volume of content about the subject, including many articles linked in the existing article before this discussion. Item D3 further indicates that the mentions should be beyond passing references, and the references in the article pass that threshold. The references, both existing and new after this discussion started, feature the subject as the subject of the article. - David Stargell (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not additional support, it is literally a trivial mention and does not contribute to notability in any capacity; per WP:GNG that source adds no value to a consideration of notability. As discussed above, the references, including the press releases and other sources FormalDude evaluated above are not sufficient for various reasons, and the number of WP:GHITS is irrelevant to the notability of a subject. Notability is not and has never been based on "volume of content". - Aoidh (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The support for WP:GNG in this case is beyond "volume of content." The subject of this article has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, including at minimum the articles directly about the subject in the WSJ (feature articles, not a bio index page), Bloomberg (the feature article, not a bio index page), Inside Philanthropy, and the LA Business Journal. The subject's volume of WP:GHITS is presented as intended, as additional support in evaluating WP:GNG versus an independent case for it. The articles directly about the subject appear to indicate non-triviality, and even articles where he is not the subject (like political action) would tend toward non-triviality. In reviewing the sum of the evidence, including the multiple articles featuring the subject from reliable sources on a regional & national level, the case is stronger for WP:GNG than for the counter. - David Stargell (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're repeating the same refuted arguments, the WSJ piece is trivial. Bloomberg is problematic as a likely SPS and doesn't muster WP:GNG. The Inside Philanthropy piece, outside of the quotes directly from him (non-independent), is trivial. The LA Business Journal article you're referring to doesn't even mention him, at all! This is a bunch of noise. Granted, there's a lot of the noise being thrown into the mix, but when you sit and look at each source on its merits, every single one falls short of being a reliable, independent third-party source that has significant coverage of this article's subject. You can't just list off a bunch of publisher names as if that creates notability anymore than you can appeal to the "volume of content". This is not a notable topic; naming publishers without context does not change this. WP:GHITS is presented as intended? It is not "additional support", it is the same level of support that the sources in the article provide: none at all. Searching "Eric Smidt" could return 8 billion results, and that wouldn't matter one iota in terms of notability, so mentioning how many results are returned on a Google search is meaningless. We're not going to agree, so let's just agree to disagree, because your explanation as to why this article is notable is not in keeping with Wikipedia's definition of notability, independence, or triviality. - Aoidh (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A plain reading of the links above & the sources listed prior to this discussion supports WP:GNG. The WSJ article is about the subject directly and mentions him by name in the subhead. The Bloomberg article is about the subject directly and mentions him by name in the subhead, and the tone & content of the article demonstrate it's not SPS. The Inside Philanthropy article is about the subject and mentions him by name in the first paragraph. The LABJ article is about the subject directly and mentions him by name at the start. These are a sample of the articles available via search that establish WP:GNG, and the article as it was prior to the discussion contained significant references about the subject from multiple independent sources, which supported and supports WP:GNG. - David Stargell (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to go in circles with you about these same sources over and over. It has already been explained why those sources do not contribute to the notability of the subject. Your editing history is uniquely focused on this subject and surrounding topics; I would suggest editing more outside of the scope of this topic and to get a better understanding of what notability is on Wikipedia and what kind of sources are expected. - Aoidh (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's mainly to clarify some of the points above about the sources cited above. For example, a lot of this thread went to explaining that City News Service is a news wire (as indicated correctly on its Wikipedia page) and not a PR firm, which readers living in Los Angeles would know based on their use of other media, but which those outside of Los Angeles may not know. To help with evaluating WP:GNG for this or any other article, it seems helpful to clarify something that's as critical to a source's credibility as whether or not it's news. I recognize and appreciate that you do not agree with the view that this article is WP:GNG. I encourage a plain reading of the sources listed in this discussion & previously in the article. - David Stargell (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The LA Times article is just the print version of the LA Times article discussed above and the second source (which is by the AP and can be found digitally on other sites such as here) is about a lawsuit and has trivial content about Eric Smidt, mentioning of some allegations; the meat of that text is the lawsuit itself, nothing useful about Eric Smidt can be gleaned from it. - Aoidh (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention notability is NOTINHERITED. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can only find one article that is significantly about him: "Rough road to philanthropy; Early obstacles set the stage for businessman Eric Smidt, whose $25-million gift gives LACMA a boost. Fleishman, Jeffrey. Los Angeles Times; Los Angeles, Calif. [Los Angeles, Calif]. 29 Oct 2016: A.1." ebsco link. Most of the references in the article are not RS - They are: his company site; prnewswire; some links for organizations mentioned in the article but that say nothing about him; a fair number of 404's. So, if another one or two significant RSs are found, then the item of work is to remove all of the essentially unreferenced information. Lamona (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2022 (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/Eric_Smidt&oldid=1108562558"