Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Strauss

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. Sandstein 10:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Strauss[edit]

[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)

This biography is written about a person who is likely non-notable and relies on sources that are not usable for BLPs. It relies on sources such university websites, faculty lists, and lists of articles written. None of these establish notability and their use in a BLP should be minimal, only to establish basic facts. Certainly, Strauss has written some opinion pieces for large organizations, but there is little to no third party coverage of him to be found. Per WP:BIO independent, reliable source coverage is required to establish notability. Without significant third-party coverage, there is no indication that the subject is notable and this bio should be deleted. SWL36 (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now While I agree about the state of the article, he might be notable enough (he has a few secondary sources covering him) for inclusion. He has been both a national OpEd columnist and a manager in the NYC municipality. But the whole problem is that it seems like Steven Strauss or someone with a close connection to him may possibly be editing the article, and continues to do so using multiple sockpuppets. It might be a good idea to investigate the COI issue first? It might be useful if you could look into this? Avaya1 (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article Steven Strauss to address WP:Blp and notability issues (Note - on the talk page for Strauss it has been claimed that I have a conflict, the issue of who has a conflict re this article should be discussed in a different venue). But, re my purported COI, I view this as binary:

I am Strauss (or his employee, or whatever), my concerns about BLP should be treated v seriously, or
I have no COI, again my concerns should be taken seriously because I created the page and have been the main (but far from only) editor.

The page (at the moment) has no meaningful secondary sources and that alone is a reason to consider deletion. Strauss, has been covered in independent secondary media (e.g., The Guardian,The Observer, CNN, CNBC, Bloomberg Radio, NYTimes, Canadian Broadcasting, etc.), generally introduced/mentioned as an academic and cited/interviewed/quoted about economic development, American politics and public policy, and technology issues. These are also the areas in which he received some (minor) awards. Someone deleted all of this (and keeps deleting it) claiming it was peakcokery, puffery, non-encyclopedic and/or non-significant coverage. Oddly the same editor keeps adding thinly sourced info on Israel-Palestine, for which Strauss has no independent secondary coverage.

Addendum, another reason given (in the edits) for deleting the independent secondary media coverage of Strauss, is that it is not independent in the Wikipedia sense. The claim is that since most of these are not media reports about strauss, but rather Strauss being interviewed/quoted they are not independent. So the claim is that because it is CNBC interviewing Strauss for his views on technology, it is not independent. Having prepared this material I can confirm most of it is quotes and interviews, so if that is not considered independent the page should not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYC.Geek (talk • contribs) 16:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we assume the deletions of the independent secondary sources/Strauss’s publications was in good faith and the community agrees they shouldn’t be in the biography - the biography should be deleted

I am concerned about BLP issues from the perspective of Commission and Omission

Examples of Issues of Commission: Recently, someone keeps putting on the page things like Strauss’s middle initial is D, he was born in 1958, and worked at McKinsey for 5 years. As far as I can tell no sources on the page support these claims. These claims might be accurate, but I know of no secondary or primary source that supports these claims.
Examples of Omission/Deletion: Recently, someone keeps deleting that Strauss is an academic. Strauss has a Ph.D. from Yale, was a Fellow and junior faculty member at Harvard and since 2014 has held a named Visiting Professorship at Princeton. He has a modest amount of academic publications and citations (someone deleted this info from the page) For the last several years when Strauss is quoted/cited on CNN, etc. it is always as an academic (Prof. Strauss ...). I am not claiming Strauss is a notable academic, but I can’t understand why his being an academic is being deleted.
Example of placing thinly sourced controversial material on the page - Lately someone has been posting on the page thinly sourced stuff on the page re Strauss’s views on Israel-Palestine. None of what has been posted reflects independent secondary coverage of Strauss’s opinions on Israel, I am also not sure what is being posted is even an accurate summary of what Strauss thinks on this topic. Nothing that I am aware of indicates Strauss is an expert on Israel-Palestine so I am not clear why this stuff is being posted.

If we can’t address these BLP issues that is another reason to consider deleting the page

NYC.Geek (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NYC.Geek (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NYC.Geek (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you are now saying you are Strauss? The subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, and there are secondary sources discussing the editor, such as The Silicon Alley 100: New York's Coolest Tech People In 2010. The issue is that it should be not be edited by a person with a COI. Avaya1 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass any relevant SNG (for New York City Economic Development nor for academics). The sources in the article do not establish SIGCOV. Now - sure - he definitely generates op-eds and speaking engagements. But we're lacking secondary, in-depth, and independent coverage on the subject of the article. Icewhiz (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject writes for a major national newspaper, and has secondary source coverage. The issue with the article is COI. The COI issue should be addressed first. Avaya1 (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it - we don't quite have secondary SIGCOV on the subject. We have a subject who filled a mid-level political/administrative role in city government, who went on to teach a bit, and took to writing a column in a national newspaper. None of these are inherently notable - they could be (given coverage) - but they aren't in the presumed notable range. While I can find things our subject wrote - I see very little on our subject. Given that notability of our subject is borderline at best, the nature of the editing on the article does not encourage me to retain it. Looking at the references in the article (in this version as of April 5) - all the sources are either employers/self-profiles/not-RS with one exception - The Silicon Alley 100: New York's Coolest Tech People In 2010, Business Insider - which has all of two paragraphs on our subject. In short - sources demonstrating GNG have not been presented here. Icewhiz (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (see above for my reasoning). However, Avaya1 you deleted all of the other secondary sources that used to be in this article (Guardian, Observer, NYTimes, CNBC, etc), claiming (in the edits) they were "peacocky, puffery, and non-encyclopedic". It would move this conversation forward if you would tell us the secondary sources you are satisfied with, or restore them to the page.

It would also help if you could address the WP:BLP issues you created (e.g., what is your source for claiming Strauss spent 5 years at McKinsey), why do you keep posting about Strauss's purported views on Israel-Palestine when no secondary coverage exists of his opinions on that subject (to my knowledge Strauss, is known and quoted for his work on economic development, technology and US domestic policy) and why do you claim Strauss is not an academic? NYC.Geek (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your COI concerns, you have made this claim against me on multiple talk pages, I suggest you raise the COI issue at WP:COIN and that we use this discussion to focus on the deletion decision.NYC.Geek (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2019 (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.