Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Heckman

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. ✗plicit 13:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Heckman

[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)

No sources that pass WP:GNG/WP:BASIC/WP:PROF/WP:ARTIST, and I was unable to find any additional sources that meet notability criteria after a search of my own. The majority of sources are not independent of the subject, and some do not contain significant coverage. Several parts of the article read in a promotional tone. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Artists, Businesspeople, and Social science. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find this nomination for the deletion of the Brad Heckman article to be both perplexing and unsubstantiated. It appears the nominator made their decision after requesting access to the Wall Street Journal article, which was behind a paywall. If this singular paywalled source was the tipping point for an AfD discussion, we need to reassess what constitutes a careless deletion nomination because this one certainly fits the bill. The Wall Street Journal article in question is entirely about the nonprofit organization that Heckman founded and led. It begs the question: What specifically about that article, which thoroughly discusses Heckman's professional work, convinced the nominator that this article deserved deletion? Let's entertain the notion for a moment that the sources might not be independent of the subject, which seems to be suggested by the nomination. This presumably refers to the TEDx talk given by Heckman. Notability guidelines clearly state that the source must be independent of the subject. TEDx talks, much like interviews in Rolling Stone or other reputable publications, should not be considered non-independent simply because they involve the subject speaking about their work. This rule is better suited for sources like blogs and social media posts, not established platforms like TEDx. Additionally, articles published by universities about their alumni typically reflect the institution's pride and are usually well-researched, as evidenced by the in-depth article from Dickinson College on Heckman's life and achievements. Heckman is a published illustrator and painter, recognized by reputable organizations such as the Combat Antisemitism Movement for his artistic contributions. The mention of his nonprofit offering free mediation services is a factual statement about the organization's purpose, not an advertisement. According to WP:PROMO, a promotional tone is characterized by self-promotion and blatant advocacy, neither of which are present in this article. Wikipedia’s own guidelines suggest tagging articles with {{Promotional tone}} if necessary, rather than nominating them for deletion. I urge my fellow editors to consider these points carefully. The Brad Heckman article is well-supported by independent and reliable sources, and the nomination for deletion appears to be based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of Wikipedia's notability and promotional content guidelines. Let's keep this informative and well-documented article. Thank you. 9t5 (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 9t5 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

For reference, 9t5 asked me to review this page at User talk:FormalDude § Page review. I checked to see if I had access to all the sources (since I wouldn't want to review it if I didn't) and the only one I couldn't access was the WSJ article. I didn't start reviewing until 9t5 provided me with a link to a free copy of the WSJ source on my talk page (that link now says deleted by the owner, I've reuploaded here). So no, the WSJ wasn't any "tipping point". Nonetheless, it does not contain significant coverage of Heckman, you said it yourself: it's "entirely about the nonprofit organization". It doesn't even mention Heckman's relation to the organization. When you say it "thoroughly discusses Heckman's professional work" I feel like I'm not even reading the same article as you; I can't see how it verifies even a single piece of information about him. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude “It doesn't even mention Heckman's relation to the organization”… the funny thing is that even without a Wall Street Journal subscription, you are still capable of reading the first paragraph of the article that states “But when I called the Peace Institute, CEO Brad Heckman confirmed my buddy's account”.. quite the thorough review you did. The pdf was set to auto-delete since I don’t have the right to redistribute what is behind a paywall. You could always drop $0.99 and read it on the Wall Street Journal’s website though. Cheers. 9t5 (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude But since you are making absolutely untrue statements like “It doesn't even mention Heckman's relation to the organization”.. THIS is the Wall Street Journal article. I went ahead and re-uploaded it. 9t5 (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see I missed the first two paragraphs which provide us with the one fact that Heckman is the CEO. That's still not significant coverage. Here's my assessment of the article's more promising sources:

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:FormalDude**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
WSJ			Entirely about the company, only passing mentions of Heckman.	✘ No
TEDx Talks	This is a speech given by Heckman, clearly not independent.	~ Per RSP, must abide by WP:ABOUTSELF.		✘ No
Dickinson College	Written for and by Heckmen's alma matter, consituting a WP:COISOURCE.	~ May have been provided entirely by Heckmen without any editorial oversight.		✘ No
NYT			Only a passing mention of Heckman.	✘ 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}}.

––FormalDude (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude You literally uploaded a copy of the article with that part and most of the article cut out…? I’m more concerned about that than anything else. 9t5 (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Written by alma mater”… what?! It’s published on an official university’s .edu website. You have got to be kidding me. Your speculation about universities publishing lies in order to fake the notability of their alumni is not something you need to bring with you when you sit down to review pages. That is absolutely wild to me. @FormalDude 9t5 (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source being independent of the subject doesn’t mean that their commentary cannot be what the material is. The SOURCE must be independent of the subject.

Wikipedia’s words:

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

Press releases, advertisements, autobiographies and ones own website are completely within our control. If we want, we don’t need to fact check before we publish those sorts off things.

What makes TEDx and other outlets reliable is the fact that the company is independent of the subject. So they won’t post something that is completely BS — they check to make sure it’s true first.

You aren’t understanding what a reference being “independent of the subject” means. 9t5 (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our standards for assessing sources, especially when it comes to notability, are much stricter than "not posting completely BS" and "not publishing lies". Presenting an argument about notability as an argument about TEDx posting completely BS or a university publishing lies is an extreme exaggeration of the actual debate. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FormalDude: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. - WP:SIGCOV the entire article is the authors experience having met Heckman and learned about his company’s mission. You’re telling me that since the company is the main topic that it doesn’t count? That is an absolutely ridiculous thing to go around doing to editors. You’re causing issues where there doesn’t need to be. Good for you. Enjoy your AfD discussion. 9t5 (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to ignore the sentence right before your quote? "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. tell me you can say with a straight face that WSJ has addressed Brad Heckman as a person directly and in detail. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this AfD after 9t5 brought it up on Discord. I'm not going to formally say Delete or Keep, but I'd like to clarify some things.

First, the WSJ article does not provide significant coverage of Brad Heckman at all. It would be significant coverage of New York Peace Institute, but that does not mean Brad Heckman automatically becomes notable for being the CEO of it.
Speeches at TEDx do not confer notability. Based on the TED brand, I'd be more inclined to believe that a TED speaker is notable, but I would not conclude notability just based on giving a speech at TED alone. TEDx is a different story, see this: Every TEDx event is independently curated by volunteers who generously invest their time to spotlight valuable ideas from and for their community. That means each speaker is selected by those volunteers without influence from sponsors, government, or any organizations. I've seen TEDx speakers spread pseudoscience, so TEDx doesn't really help establish notability.
There is some level of independence in an article published by the person's alma mater, but even if you argue that it counts towards GNG, it is still very weak and wouldn't satisfy GNG requiring multiple sources. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@0xDeadbeef I’m at least happy other people are participating.

When the discussion is between the articles author and the nominator and nobody else then what is the point? 9t5 (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After cutting through all the puffery (promotional tones) in the article, I'm not seeing what makes this person notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG from my POV. Also noting that I became aware of this nomination when 9t5 was criticizing the nominator for questioning the notability of the article on the community Discord. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh Can I ask a question? What is promotional sounding about it? Could you give me a few quotes so I can better understand what is even being referenced? 9t5 (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to step away from this AfD and come back to it next week so that a discussion can be had. I don’t want to disrupt the conversation with my frustrations as the author of the article. I still stand by my point above. Cheers. 9t5 (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with possible alternative of redirect to a stub on the NY Peace Institute. I'm not seeing any serious case for WP:NPROF, and I didn't find reviews of the one book. That leaves GNG. I see a lot of passing mentions along the lines of the "Ask Real Estate" bit in the NYTimes, but nothing more. I think it is well short of WP:SIGCOV. I agree that the article feels a bit promotional, but it is not so bad as for WP:TNT, and this did not factor into my !vote. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Russ Woodroofe I like this idea. I can write up a stub for it. I am genuinely shocked by this article being an easy delete for people. So I clearly have a lot still to learn about the notability requirements. I feel embarrassed. I don’t seem to ever do anything right on this website. 9t5 (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK. Everyone has an article deleted at AFD. It's almost a rite of passage. The notability guidelines are just really complicated, and also sometimes out-of-date due to stonewalling, or oversimplified (GNG), or overly complex (SNGs). I've got a couple notability essays that you might find interesting. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem LinguaeThank you. That was kind of you to say. I took it way too personal. I will leave a message on your talk page to let you know what I thought about the essays! 9t5 (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Russ Woodroofe's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reliable sources I see in the article do not give significant coverage that would show this is a notable artist, educator or entrepreneur. The New York Times article cited in the lead sentence, for example, just quotes them giving advice on how to possibly handle a dispute with a neighbor about a dog. Elspea756 (talk) 16:17, 3 June 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.