Talk:David Rogier

Top 100 Stanford Alumni in Technology of 2021
User:Timtempleton, I was disappointed to see this article redirected to the company page, but I will keep working on the draft. I've added a few additional claims to Draft:David Rogier since the original draft was submitted, and I'm hoping for some guidance on whether or not his inclusion in "The Top 100 Stanford Alumni in Technology of 2021" is worth mentioning as well. Do you mind taking a quick look? MC Alyssa (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth adding. Watch out for where you use multiple sources for a single item.  See WP:OVERCITE. For example, three sources for the stutter are overkill. See if you can extract other notable info from the extra sources, or don't include them. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  04:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Move to main space?
Hi, its Alyssa here. I want to bring to your attention a long profile in The New Yorker, which hopefully will allow Draft:David Rogier to be promoted to main space. The sources are as follows: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/25/can-masterclass-teach-you-everything; There is also an interview with Rogier on Inc., which could be added to the External links section: https://www.inc.com/alexa-von-tobel/masterclass-founder-david-rogier-.html Hopefully these new sources will do the trick. Thanks again! MC Alyssa (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The New Yorker piece is good, but it’s still primarily about the company, with some information about Rogier added as background. I think opponents of the move could still argue that we want coverage of him that’s not part of a larger focus on the company, to make this a slam dunk. The Inc interview would be better if there’s a way to show that being chosen is notable enough. I don’t know the answer to that. Maybe reach out to the NY Times’ Corner Office Team? I know that imparts notability. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  15:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. Although I feel there are already more than enough sources to ascertain notability, I appreciate your suggestions and will hopefully be able to bring more sources with a stronger focus specifically on David Rogier so that there will be a consensus that this article should be published on Wikipedia's main space. Once again, I appreciate your help. MC Alyssa (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I already think he's just barely notable enough and moved the article last year to mainspace. Courtesy pinging, who moved it back because he didn't think Rogier was notable enough. He's the one you have to convince. It's often good practice to show the top three or four sources for unconnected editors to review, so I'll put these up for consideration. Atlantic profile of company and Rogier; Fortune 40 under 40; Variety profile; TechCrunch fundraising profile Good luck! TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  00:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi . I want to thank you for your helpful advice. I would add the New Yorker profile along with the sources you mentioned above. It seems to me similar to the Atlantic piece as far as the focus of the article being on Rogier and MasterClass, and it is really an excellent source. Thanks again! MC Alyssa (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)