Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samarth Kulkarni

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 consensus here, relative to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies for deletion, is for deletion at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samarth Kulkarni[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[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)

Non-notable CEO of a notable company. All of the sources cited are about the company, apart from this paywalled article in Stat about him winning a "best biopharma CEO" ~~award~~ reader poll. He has appeared on television news to discuss the company and biotech more generally, but those are primary sources, and I couldn't find solid, significant coverage of him in reliable secondary sources to show that he's notable independent from the company. Wikishovel (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Biology, Technology, and India. Wikishovel (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Wikishovel,

I sent a note on my Talk page but perhaps it's more relevant here. My vote is to keep Kulkarni, and I disagree that he's a non-notable CEO due to the sheer amount of media mentions he has--paywalled and non-paywalled, in affiliation with his tenure at CRISPR. I think he warrants a Wikipedia page alongside other biopharma CEOs of far less newsworthy companies, particularly since he's heading, as you mentioned, a notable company. Would it help if I added/provided different or additional secondary sources? I can have a look around and see what else is available on record. Nathan Evo (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes please: if you can find reliable sources with substantial coverage of him, rather than about the company, then please do add them. Wikishovel (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Enough coverage about the company found, nothing for this person. This is all I can find in a RS [1] that isn't a PR item; he is quoted in a brief paragraph of a few lines in an article about a conference. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to CRISPR Therapeutics. - Altenmann >talk 19:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no in-depth coverage. failed WP:N. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added two additional sources underscoring his notability, principally as "one of the top 25 biotech CEOs of 2020" and "11 Asian-American Executives Shaping the Future of Biopharma." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Evo (talk • contribs) 19:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Nathan Evo (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this xfd. [reply]
Keep: He has more coverage than many Wikipedia execs and certainly enough news mentions to belong here, particularly given that he's in the top slot of biotech CEOs. passed WP:N. Georgieam 14:38 31 March 2024 (UTC)— Georgieam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep: Enough coverage in media to be notable.--Afus199620 (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article appears to have been expanded since the last delete !vote was posted, although based on arguments made here the balance still favors deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He's notable as a biotech leader and has more than enough media coverage.--Homerseditor, 11:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response to the recent posts endorsing the WP:REFBOMBing, here's a source analysis:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Wikishovel
CRISPR Therapeutics	Press release or paid placement	? Press release	Press release, no byline, includes marketing phone numbers at bottom	✘ No
All About Belgaum	Press release or paid placement	News blog with no byline, obvious COI as it talks about his "proud parents"	user-submitted, not journalism	✘ No
Fierce Biotech	Press release or paid placement	Biotech news blog, no byline	Press release, no byline, includes line about "our vision" at end	✘ No
CRISPR bio	His bio on his company's website	Company bio	All companies publish bios of their senior mgt	✘ No
Scientific American	Well established magazine	Byline given, and editorial oversight clearly outlined on website	His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article	✘ No
Time magazine	Well established magazine	Byline given, and editorial oversight clearly outlined on website	His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article	✘ No
Forbes	Well established magazine	Byline given, editorial oversight clearly outlined on website	His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article	✘ No
Fierce Pharma	? Sister title of "Fierce Biotech" above, independence unclear	? Byline given in this one, but reliability is unclear	His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article	✘ No
Healthcare Technology Report	? blog, unknown if it is user-submitted content, but it includes a posed photo, apparently from his company	blog, click-bait	? One entry in a list on an SEO blog of the "top healthcare CEOs of 2020", with no explanation of inclusion criteria	✘ No
Timmerman Report	? blog, unknown if it is user-submitted content, but it includes a posed photo, apparently from his company	? a post by grad student on a biopharma blog of unknown reliability	One entry on a blog post about the "Asian Americans shaping the future of biopharma", with no explanation of inclusion criteria	✘ No
Centessa	His bio on his company's website	Company bio	Copypaste of his CRISPR Therapeutics company bio above	✘ No
Black Diamond	His bio on his company's website	Company bio	All companies publish bios of their senior mgt	✘ No
ReparerX	Board list on company website	Company bios	His name isn't mentioned on the page	✘ No
Marketscreener	? Some sort of company listings website, might be independent	? no editorial oversight or even contact info listed, might be reliable	directory listing simply confirms that he's head of a company	✘ No
Biotechnology Innovation Organization	membership listing page of an industry association	seems reliable from its "about" page etc	His name isn't mentioned in the list	✘ No
India New England News	clickbait news blog attempting to pass as a newspaper	probably user-generated content as it's mostly a paste of his company bio (and photo) above, otherwise it's paid placement	? the American India Foundation is notable, but this post simply says he and another exec are being "honored at a gala", so the notability of the recognition is unclear	✘ No
STAT+	newspaper	has byline, editorial oversight	~ Some actual reportage here, but it's paywalled, and appears to be about him winning the newspaper's reader poll	~ Partial
CNBC	national TV network	national TV network	interview: primary source	✘ No
CNBC	national TV network	national TV network	interview: primary source	✘ No
WSJ	national newspaper	national newspaper	interview: primary source	✘ No
Cura Foundation	independent foundation with notable backers	interview by notable foundation	interview: primary source	✘ No
The Hill Events	The Hill is an established newspaper with well defined editorial oversight	interview during event sponsored by newspaper	interview: primary source	✘ No
Forbes	Forbes is an independent national newspaper...	? ...but per WP:FORBES they also publish "contributed content", and it's unclear whether this is Forbes' own content or "contributed".	In either case, this is still an interview, therefore a primary source	✘ No
FII Institute	? Future Investment Initiative Institute is a government-sponsored group	interview during event sponsored by group	interview: primary source	✘ No
FT	Financial Times is a national newspaper	interview during event sponsored by group	interview: primary source	✘ No
CNBC	National TV network	news website of the TV network	trivial coverage of his contribution in a highlights summary of a panel discussion	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete. WP:NOTCV and WP:NOTWHOSWHO, routine coverage and interviews are insufficent to write an article from. I don't think the content should be kept in article history either, though I suppose if it is I wouldn't be too broken up about it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:28, 19 April 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.