Talk:Balaji Srinivasan

Promotional text
This article had some promotional text and non-notable details like the online classes taught, concepts/idea they shared publicly, and questionable claims about being the first to raise alarm about Coronavirus. I went ahead and removed them to keep focus on the notible controbutions this person had made. Ew3234 (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello! Thanks for your comments. I removed any non-neutral language, added more citations, and included criticism of his earlier talks as well as a section on Srinivasan's failed bitcoin mining startup, 21.co, which pivoted to become Earn.com.
 * However, as you know, WP:BLP sets a high standard for including content on living people and, in particular, "zero information is preferred to misleading or false information." Many factual claims in the Metz article were publicly disputed at the time by figures like Jesse Singal, Scott Alexander, Scott Aaronson, and Reason Magazine, so it's not a reliable source and thus does not meet the high bar for WP:BLP. See this: https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1361524592188272648
 * In addition, this particular episode is not of enduring notability per WP:NOTNEWS (and WP:BLP). For example, events like being considered for FDA commissioner and former CTO of a $50bn co are not disputed and are enduringly notable. Kristyuhorton (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Kristyuhorton, The New York Times and Biz Insider did not retract the story or issue a correction. Yes, some people might disagree with this unfavorable coverage but that does not make it not a reliable source. If that were true, there would be no coverage of the Me Too movement. If others dispute this and you have a reliable source (something better that a tweet so that it meet reliable source standards) you can add it to the article to give readers a better picture but shouldn't just remove a controversal detail because others dispute it when its back by sources that include the NYT. Ew3234 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Kristyuhorton, The New York Times and Biz Insider did not retract the story or issue a correction. Yes, some people might disagree with this unfavorable coverage but that does not make it not a reliable source. If that were true, there would be no coverage of the Me Too movement. If others dispute this and you have a reliable source (something better that a tweet so that it meet reliable source standards) you can add it to the article to give readers a better picture but shouldn't just remove a controversal detail because others dispute it when its back by sources that include the NYT. Ew3234 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, the FDA nomination is notible and I agree that it should remain. I don't think I removed that. But other details are questionable like the MOOCs and publishing those articles don't appear notible. I don't think they belong in this article Ew3234 (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with . The subject's suggestion to dox journalists, unfortunate though it was, is well-sourced and should remain. I also agree with Ew3234 that this article is stuffed with "promotional text and non-notable details." Do we need the laundry list of companies the subject invested in or need to know he invested early in crypto-currencies? Do we need to know he organized a relief effort for Covid sufferers in India or he advocates the use of crypto-currencies in that country? None of this is particularly remarkable. As it stands today this article reads like a vanity bio you see on a company's website -- you know, the page where you're told how great the people who work for the company are. Chisme (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to delete
Hello! I'm pretty new to wikipedia. This article seems like it's a puff piece + the subject is not so notable? Was given this by the copy editing suggestions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Haji_Mohammad_Idris and found this notability page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_technology_officer#Notable_CTOs (It looks like there is no established notability criterion for technology as with music: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles but don't think this page's subject really compares to the ones in CTO notability page. I'm going to nominate this for deletion. Quicklibrary (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Balaji Srinivasan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Balaji Srinivasan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Balaji Srinivasan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Quicklibrary (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources
I removed or tagged all the sources that link to Twitter posts, Crunchbase, and text written by Srinivasan or the product or company in question. These don't meet Wiki standards. Ew3234 (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

List of investments
The article currently says Srinivasan invested in OpenGov. The cited source does not say this explicitly, but mentions that he is a partner at Andreessen Horowitz, a firm that did invest. Does this count as Srinivasan acting as an angel investor? Or is the bar for inclusion higher?

I'm inclined to say that this is insufficient, so I'm going ahead and removing OpenGov. Jlevi (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)