Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samarth Kulkarni

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 | 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)

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]

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]

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]

  • Comment in response to the recent posts endorsing the WP:REFBOMBing, here's a source analysis:
Source assessment table prepared by User:Wikishovel
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No Press release or paid placement Press release No Press release, no byline, includes marketing phone numbers at bottom No
No Press release or paid placement No News blog with no byline, obvious COI as it talks about his "proud parents" No user-submitted, not journalism No
No Press release or paid placement No Biotech news blog, no byline No Press release, no byline, includes line about "our vision" at end No
No His bio on his company's website Yes Company bio No All companies publish bios of their senior mgt No
Yes Well established magazine Yes Byline given, and editorial oversight clearly outlined on website No His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article No
Yes Well established magazine Yes Byline given, and editorial oversight clearly outlined on website No His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article No
Yes Well established magazine Yes Byline given, editorial oversight clearly outlined on website No His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article No
Sister title of "Fierce Biotech" above, independence unclear Byline given in this one, but reliability is unclear No His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article No
blog, unknown if it is user-submitted content, but it includes a posed photo, apparently from his company No 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
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 No One entry on a blog post about the "Asian Americans shaping the future of biopharma", with no explanation of inclusion criteria No
No His bio on his company's website Yes Company bio No Copypaste of his CRISPR Therapeutics company bio above No
No His bio on his company's website Yes Company bio No All companies publish bios of their senior mgt No
No Board list on company website Yes Company bios No His name isn't mentioned on the page No
Some sort of company listings website, might be independent no editorial oversight or even contact info listed, might be reliable No directory listing simply confirms that he's head of a company No
No membership listing page of an industry association Yes seems reliable from its "about" page etc No His name isn't mentioned in the list No
No clickbait news blog attempting to pass as a newspaper No 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
Yes newspaper Yes 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
Yes national TV network Yes national TV network No interview: primary source No
Yes national TV network Yes national TV network No interview: primary source No
Yes national newspaper Yes national newspaper No interview: primary source No
Yes independent foundation with notable backers Yes interview by notable foundation No interview: primary source No
Yes The Hill is an established newspaper with well defined editorial oversight Yes interview during event sponsored by newspaper No interview: primary source No
Yes 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". No In either case, this is still an interview, therefore a primary source No
Future Investment Initiative Institute is a government-sponsored group Yes interview during event sponsored by group No interview: primary source No
Yes Financial Times is a national newspaper Yes interview during event sponsored by group No interview: primary source No
Yes National TV network Yes news website of the TV network No 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}}.
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.