Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Heppelmann

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!

(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]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PTC_(software_company). He is not notable on his own, but a redirect to the company would be reasonable. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 13:45, 16 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 Jobs, allocation of how much of the leader's notability is inherited from the notable entity versus and how much of the entity's notability is inherited from the leader is as fruitless a debate as which came first, the chicken or the egg. The point of interest for Heppelmann and PTC (software company) is the same as 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 MrsSnoozyTurtle seeks relief by deletion. The notion of inherited notability is not part of the WP:NBIO guidelines. This is an opinion without facts to support it. Heppelmann is notable in his own right. Submitted above are links where thousands of Wikipedia BLPs in the technology field can be found that are of equal or lesser notability that would fit in the deletion category that MrsSnoozyTurtle claims. Heppelmann's BLP cannot be deleted to please an editor without a clear definition in WP:NBIO and facts to support the category of notability claim. Stevep2007 (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article reads like a resume and needs work. Borderline on having GNG type sources. The editor is new and has probably not "worked this" regarding that....my guess is that such sources almost certainly exist. But I think that everything else weighs in for a keep. Note that the banner is AFD missing from the article page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete and redirect to PTC he isn't independently notable and thus doesn't qualify for an article. Merely being associated with a notable entity does not mean he too is notable. It's not contagious. VAXIDICAE💉 12:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stevep2007 It would really behoove you to stop 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]

Praxidicae your tone, language, choice of forum, and your conduct striking through the heading KEEP that I used in a previous version and on (talk) were intended to intimidate, shame, and embarrass me and are not consistent with either WP:EQ and could step over into WP:BULLY. Please conduct yourself with civility and apply the WP:GOODFAITH. If you cannot separate your feelings, and opinions from facts, please keep them on the talk pages as recommended by WP:EQ. Stevep2007 (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stevep2007, I disagree with your accusations towards VAXIDICAE and support their request for you to follow AfD etiquette and policies. Also, the majority of your accounts edits have for bios of executives at PTC_(software_company), so IMHO there are WP:COI concerns here. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MrsSnoozyTurtle your uninvited entry into this side discussion should deescalate, not the contrary, and your comments and Praxidicae's should be made on our user talk pages as recommended by WP:ET because the subject of this side discussion is not relevant to the notability discussion above. I have only replied to contentious comments here because I cannot move your and theirs to the appropriate venue. If I have spoken to set boundaries because Praxidicae's language did not follow WP:ET and I felt that they were intended to intimidate, shame, and embarrass, it is not up to you to judge. It is other Wikipedians' responsibility. Praxidicae name choice after Praxidice, goddess of judicial punishment and the exactor of vengeance, a talisman of intimidation, makes the comments more disturbing. With regard to your assertion of 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]

Stevep2007 Super hot take there. If you think I have violated our civility policy, go file a request at WP:ANI, similarly if you find that my username is against WP:UPOL, report it at 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]

KEEP the subject Heppelmann is notable per WP:NBIO. I looked at the links above and can confirm that there are many BLP pages of lesser notability on Wikipedia. User:Jreed10 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there are other Wikipedia pages with less notability doesn't mean this page should be kept. That's the purpose of having these discussions. Megtetg34 (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that lesser, equal or greater notability, Megtetg34, is relevant is precedent. Without clear laws, one refers to case precedent. In this AfD case, it is alleged that the subject Heppelmann is not notable because he does not inherit notability from a notable entity, PTC. Because 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.