Talk:Marc Bodnick

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) Is this for real? Jeez. -- Wikidemon (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in this article to suggest that this person is notable. Specifically, I refer you to Notability. There isn't significant coverage of this person. As far as I can tell from this article, he's your average run of the mill person for his vocation. If he deserves an article then why doesn't every other venture capitalist with similar credentials. Furthermore, from the criteria on Notability (people), he satisfies neither: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." or "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.". As such, I see nothing to indicate why his person is notable enough to merit a stand-alone article, hence the CSD. Transcendence (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not worth arguing. It's not a viable speedy deletion candidate (the article asserts notability - you might want to brush up on that) and any deletion nomination would be a waste of time. The major publications in the VC industry (TechCrunch, VentureBeat) write articles about him and his doings. For goodness sake he's got 38 mentions major and minor (per my google search) in the New York Times, four in the Wall Street Journal, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're sidestepping the issue. As, I've pointed out already, this article doesn't do anything to assert the notability of the person in question with regards to Notability or Notability (people). You claim that the article asserts notability; how does it do that? The only things it talks about are things that are better off being in the articles of the companies themselves rather than a stand-alone article. The things that supposedly make thing notable from the article: He co-founded Silver Lake Partners, worked at Blackstone Group, co-founded Elevation Partners, invested in Facebook and Yelp, became an executive at Quora, and had a dispute with Elevation Partners. None of these things, or even these things as a whole satisfy the criteria of Notability or Notability (people). Wikipedia doesn't write stand-alone articles of people for being a serial entrepreneur or making big investments. The articles are there because they satisfy Notability or Notability (people).
 * Furthermore, TechCrunch and VentureBeat are not on the same level of professional journalism as WSJ or NYT. I follow TechCrunch and the quality of journalism there is far,far below anything I would expect from NYT or WSJ. If VentureBeat is anything like TechCrunch, then it's also not on par. You say he has 38 mentions in the NYT and 4 in the WSJ. Are those all about him? If not, then by Notability (people), it's not coverage about him. See "Invalid Criteria", first bullet point. Also, do see the second bullet point of that section, search engine statistics are not a valid argument. In my opinion, this article just doesn't follow the spirit of "the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be 'worthy of notice' – that is, 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded'" (Notability (people)).
 * In anycase, the reason I'm using CSD instead of nomination for deletion is simply because this person doesn't have anything significant about him to merit a stand-alone article. Yes, he is covered in the news, but those articles are about companies, not him. Not only that, but he hasn't done anything satisfying: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." or "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.". You can add all the news articles you want about him and it wouldn't change this (to my knowledge, if he actually has done something satisfying that then please add it and I'll remove the CSD). What I'm saying is that you can't even improve the article to a state where it does satisfy the notability policies (again as far as I know).
 * Look, I'm not trying to make things personal here. I'm just making the case that this article doesn't show why this person is notable. Transcendence (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines for speedy deletion criteria A7 state clearly "This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." In my interpretation, a CSD is to save time for things going to AfD where general consensus is that improving the article to "Keep" consensus is impossible. In this case, because Bodnick is the co-founder of Elevation Partners, you could make a convincing argument for an AfD to be closed as a redirect to that article. I've removed the CSD tag, but won't object to you sending the article to AfD if you sincerely believe there should not be a WP article on it. Oh, and it's not personal, don't worry - if I took things personally around here I'd have been indeffed for civility long ago. ;-) Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Unflattering hit piece
I came to this article looking for objective biographical information on Marc Bodnick, and what I discovered was a hit piece. Regardless of how well sourced such a hit piece might be, it remains a hit piece. Did I mention that this reads like a hit piece? See Biographies of living persons. // Internet Esquire (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, I created this article and I can assure you it is not supposed to be a hit piece. But thanks for calling that to our attention. What happened is that an anonymous not-signed-in editor added all this material about a week ago, and neither I nor anybody who should be watching this article noticed. Sometimes people come to articles about people and business and add lots of negative stuff because they have some personal grudge or self-interest, or they incorrectly think that mentioning all the scandals about people and things is a good way to explain them. Judging by the poor formatting and lack of understanding of article style, I would guess that the person is a rookie editor, not a veteran hiding behind anonymity. I've removed it all, as 100% of the new information was derogatory, and either unsourced, poorly sourced, a matter of somebody's personal opinion, or of trivial relevance. It would be helpful if you and the rest of us could add some more appropriate, detailed, sourced information. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)