Talk:Jason Pontin

Non-Notable Sources
There's been a lot of additions of "resume" style updates with no notable reference links. Investments and job titles should only be included when there are high quality 3rd party references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.91.159 (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The content you removed was sourced. Meatsgains (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It was sourced from PR Newswire and DCVC's own website. The source you just added from the Boston Globe is written by Pontin himself and doesn't include any references to Pontin being a VC or working at Flagship Pioneering.


 * Better? This is uncontroversial information. Meatsgains (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This one doesn't reference Pontin at all: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/03/31/magazine/what-us-will-be-like-after-we-conquer-coronavirus/

I can't read the full WSJ link but it doesn't seem to mention him in the available text either.


 * Its behind a paywall but he's referenced... Meatsgains (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
It appears from the history that this page was created as a reference for a rather POV series of articles complaining about Pontin's criticism of de Grey. Is that "controversy" even relevant in an encyclopedic entry on Pontin? Knotnic 16:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

New York Times column
Jason Pontin writes: while the person who added the details of my January 28th, 2007 column in The New York Times was clearly irritated by the story, I do not think the column deserves mention on this wiki page. The article wasn't that controversial (at least in the sense that not many people paid it much attention), and it seems odd to single out one story from the thousands that I have written over the years. Would some one without any conflict of interest remove it?

On top of being peeved at being outed, the above commenter is trolling Jason Pontin's social media posts and in general making a pest of himself, demonstrating that his deletion request is just as extension of defacement in other media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.52.24 (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

File:JASON PONTIN.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
I have uploaded a new image of Mr. Pontin to the Wikimedia Commons and placed it in the bio box of this article. The new image is covered under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license. Wroush (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Folio Magazine awards
Most of the "recognition" section refers to Folio Magazine awards. Are those notable enough for inclusion? Folio Magazine itself has very little press coverage. John Nagle (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Awards from a publication which itself is not notable enough for a WP article are probably not notable enouh for inclusion. - Brianhe (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge to MIT Technology Review
Following de-peacocking after 10 years of the user self-editing, so little actually remains cited and notable the article is not in a good state Deku-shrub (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Pontin does enough of significance outside of Technology Review. The merge is not a good idea. Jeffery Thomas 00:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the merge notation on the page because given the above note it's clear Deku-shrub has something against Pontin. Jeffery Thomas 15:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please focus on the edits not the editor. The merge proposal was legitimate in my opinion and I have restored it. For the record, I have no feelings about Pontin one way or the other. - Brianhe (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems sufficiently-notable to me to warrant own page, esp. by Jimbo's "notable means verifiable" notion of notability. How to resolve? as this is a messy top-note to the MIT Tech Review page. I vote resolve to not merge. Comments?, or is two against enough? (full disclosure: i've got no skin in this game) Tim bates (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Professional arguments over ideas would be inappropriate to include in the Technology Review page but are sufficiently interesting to merit keeping; I found them useful when I was checking his background today. Don't merge for me. 24.5.197.180 (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't merge - sufficient notability per above arguments. The discussion link at the top of the MIT Technology Review article mistakenly goes to that article's talk page - I'll fix it now. This proposed merge is coming up on six months - seems like a long time. If this was AfD it would be closed as no consensus by now, and the hatnotes removed. Timtempleton (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Merger makes no sense--As someone who reads MIT Technology Review who just stumbled upon this, I agree that it would be a disservice to both pages to merge them. It would be completely inappropriate, particularly since Jason Pontin is no longer editor of the publication. The current editor is David Rotman. I shall remove the proposal — Preceding unsigned comment added by K-MUS (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)