Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Hodosh

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 keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Hodosh

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)

I initially tried to redirect to TEDMED but it's been contested. Hodosh is not independently notable of TEDMED and this article should be deleted and redirected to TEDMED as there are no sufficient sources about Hodosh directly. Praxidicae (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In agreement with userdude's notes below, to keep page, per relevant sources indicated. Also, to address concern by Praxidicae, added citation on main page to Entrepreneur Magazine which is independent article significantly about Hodosh, in addition to already existing citations. Praxidicae: Do you consider this sufficient to address your concern and conclude discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.218.184.166 (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfuly disagree, as this page has been in place since 2012, plenty of sufficient sources online as well as individual's other businesses are of notable mention. Also appears TEDMED was sold, so that is not an appropriate redirect while his new business involves Dr. Sanjay Gupta, with high notability. His previous colleagues have existing pages as well with no contention.

With brief search, additional source links for page notability include:

https://blog.ted.com/tedmed_a_new_pa/

https://xconomy.com/boston/2007/08/23/entrepreneur-segways-toward-medical-revolution-directing-genomics-x-prize/

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/15402

https://www.forbes.com/2009/10/30/healthcare-irobot-cancer-technology-breakthroughs-tedmed.html#5e83a6c2319b

Open to discussion but especially during these particular times, I think better to keep such health related pages active.----- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.218.184.166 (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Existing for a long time doesn't make something notable. You'll need to provide sources that feature in-depth, independent coverage. His "colleagues" having articles is also 100% irrelevant. Praxidicae (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to: "His "colleagues" having articles is also 100% irrelevant.": It's relevant in this instance as it's of the same nature. Chris Anderson (notable for TED) or Richard Wurman both have similar pages. Also, see above links for independent sources from Entrepreneur Magazine, Forbes, Xconomy, and others. Also additional in-depth links include Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/nm0108-8

This page could use work, but believe it's appropriate, with sources found on page as well. No major objections. Rather than back and forth, open to other opinions. Stay safe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.218.184.166 (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also you'll want to take a look at WP:COI. Praxidicae (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "other stuff", I think we disagree and welcome input, as I've provided sources. Regarding "COI", don't understand, I see no COI. Stay safe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.218.184.166 (talk • contribs)

It's not a matter of disagreeing with each other but consensus and policy. You can disagree that water is wet, it does not make you right. Praxidicae (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and welcome the additional opinion. If consensus turns out that this page is in violation then I will assist you in redirecting or deleting other pages with same parameters accordingly. Stay safe during these complex times. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.218.184.166 (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia's general inclusion criterion is the WP:GNG (simplified summary). In order for sources to qualify for this criterion, they must be reliable and independent. Of the sources in the article:

[1] is a primary source
[2] is a primary source
[3] is a primary source
[4] is a primary source
[5] Is not independent and is a blog post.
[6] is a primary source

Of the sources 73.218.184.166 added:

[7] See above.
[8] (from Xconomy) is significantly about Hodosh.
[9] (from Entrepreneur (magazine)) is significantly about Hodosh.
[10] only trivially mentions that Hodosh runs TEDMED
[11] is a Q&A and therefore not independent

Of additional sources I found:

[12] only mentions Hodosh trivially; may not be reliable
[13] (from The Providence Journal) is about Hodosh
[14] (Boston Herald) has minor coverage of Hodosh
[15] (Forbes) has minor coverage of Hodosh
[16] only trivially mentions Hodosh
[17] (Boston.com) has minor coverage of Hodosh

All in all, I think this is enough to meet WP:GNG. The article still needs to be rewritten to meet WP:V. userdude 20:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC); edited 20:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In agreement with UserDude as there are sufficient independent sources provided. Separately, while perhaps not directly related to Wikipedia's general inclusion criteria, considering that Hodosh's co-host and partner (Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN) is the most recognized person on television news right now, this page is additionally relevant. I support to Keep page and close this discussion immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.188.253 (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to whomever closes or relists this, please note that aside from UserDude, every single keep has been an SPA who shares the same geolocation with the subject and the subsequent IP edits are in the same geolocation. Praxidicae (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~

Praxidicae, This is not accurate. 73.78.158.214 is from Colorado, 73.218.184.166 from Boston and 72.200.188.253 is from Rhode Island, although agree on SPA. Regardless, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure there are no formal requirements in terms of time spent on Wikipedia or number of contributions made for non-administrators to close discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasnexus (talk • contribs) 18:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Texasnexus, consider her overturning your closure to be endorsed by myself. I neither know nor care how you came across this AFD, but I will always support overturning the closure of an AFD when it is literally the first edit made by an account. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: I have struck Texasnexus's comment per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Mz7 (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a full disclosure, I was asked to look into this close as "suspicious". I concur with that assessment. While there is a reasonable rebuttal of the nomination by one user, the proliferation of SPAs has me concerned about the overall neutrality of the voices and honestly I'd like to get some more neutral eyes to look into the article. If an admin finds that despite these concerns the keep is justified (or at the very least a "no consensus") I have no prejudice against a "speedy" closure post-relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs a rewrite and the scope broadened - by our definition he is more notable for his work related to genomics and longevity than TEDMED:
Talking to Robots by David Ewing Duncan; almost the entire chapter
2007 article from The Economist ;
Gen E: Generation Entrepreneur is Rewriting the Rules of Business--and You Can, Too! ,*
"X games for scientists offers $10m top prize" from the Boston Globe ;
"Hot to Bot", another article from the Boston Globe
Xconomy "Entrepreneur Segways Toward Medical Revolution Directing Genomics X Prize"
Entrepreneur "Package Deal"
Boston Business Journal "Inventor Kamen joins advisory board of facial recognition company ID One"
The Tab "The X factor: Innovator leading charge in genetic competition"

All of the above provide extensive coverage, and there are more refs than what I have included here. But I just accidentally hit publish (distracted on this Covid-19 morning) so leaving it here. (I will work on a rewrite of the article because I have nothing but time.) JSFarman (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2020 (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.