Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Smidt

Eric Smidt

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE (Harbor Freight is not a Fortune 500 company). I honestly don't even think it should redirect to the company, as it's a common name and an unlikely search target for someone looking for Harbor Freight, and he won't always be CEO. I think a better redirect target might be Smidt Tech, given that it's literally named after him (though I have questions about the reliability of that article too). - Aoidh (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - I believe that the article achieves WP:GNG for the reasons that articles on founders of similar companies achieve WP:GNG. For example, the articles about John Menard Jr. and Johnny Morris, the founders of Menards and Bass Pro Shops, appear to feature similar content as in this article. There is an understandable reference to each founder's business, followed by content and citations to significant coverage, in reliable sources independent of the subject, about each founder outside of his work with his company, including citations regarding politics, community work, and personal life. - David Stargell (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @David Stargell: That's a lot of buzz words, but how about a link to one of these amazing sources? ––FormalDude talk 15:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
    • @FormalDude: The current article cites, among other sources, the Los Angeles Daily News, the Los Angeles Business Journal, Guidestar, LA Weekly, and Inside Philanthropy. These citations are mostly for news events related to the individual and separate from the company. The article could be improved by adding links to additional content applicable to the individual, such as new links from the Wall Street Journal or Bloomberg. Overall, the content and sources in this article appear similar to other articles of similar founders that achieve WP:GNG, which is why it seems this article also achieves WP:GNG. David Stargell (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Los Angeles Daily News – Trival mention, not significant coverage.
      • Los Angeles Business Journal – Doesn't mention Smidt at all.
      • Guidestar – Obviously a tax form does not count towards notability.
      • LA Weekly – This reads like an opinion piece.
      • Bloomberg – See WP:Perennial sources#Bloomberg profiles.
      • That leaves WSJ and Inside Philanthropy, both of which I'm unsure about. ––FormalDude talk 22:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

        • @FormalDude: Comments on each source:
          • Wall Street Journal: The article is focused on the subject about a notable item separate from his company. The WSJ is a reliable source independent of the subject.
          • Inside Philanthropy: The article is focused on the subject about a notable item separate from his company. Inside Philanthropy is a reliable source independent of the subject.
          • Bloomberg: The link at left is a specific article within Bloomberg that is focused on the subject, about a notable item separate from his company. Bloomberg is a reliable source independent of the subject. To address the comment above, this link is a specific article and not the Bloomberg profile.
          • Los Angeles Daily News: The mention appears to exceed trivial and meet the "significant coverage" standard by nature of the subject's role in an initiative that was notable and heavily debated in Los Angeles for multiple years. The reference addresses the subject in detail and requires no original research.
          • Guidestar: Agreed and point taken.
          • LA Weekly: I think this article is consistent with the style of LA Weekly, which is a notable independent newspaper in the Los Angeles area. The article is about the subject, independent from his company, and the facts in the article appear relevant in the same manner as similar founders' political funding to their own Wikipedia articles.
          • Los Angeles Business Journal: The link at left is a different link from the one above from the same source. This article is a profile that contains multiple significant notable items separate from his company. The Los Angeles Business Journal is a reliable source independent of the subject.

        On balance, I think the articles above, save Guidestar, support WP:GNG and would be consistent with the support for articles about similar founders. David Stargell (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

• Delete: per my evaluation of sources above. ––FormalDude talk 22:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• Keep: CEO and philanthropist of Smidt's coverage and prominence seems in the spirit of WP:GNG. Consider adding mention to Smidt's profile of his gift to the Holocaust_Museum_LA cited here: NBC Los Angeles, here: The Chronical of Philanthropy, and here: Spectrum News 1 - Razomatic (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  These are almost all press releases. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  While none of the three appear to be press releases, maybe pick the one(s) that aren't. Razomatic (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  this and this is a word for word copy of a press release, distributed to multiple sources. Unless of course you think all of them have no journalistic integrity and just copy the other. Not to mention this isn't even substantially about him. But by all means tell me how a widely distributed press release by City News Service isn't a press release. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Delete, per nomination, pr and press releases, fails WP:SIGCOV. Shaniquagreen (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)