Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Fong


 * 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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and without prejudice to a future renomination. Normally I would relist and seek more input but this discussion has already received an unusual level of participation and I see no realistic likelihood of reaching consensus. I will respectfully suggest a brief delay before renominating to let people catch their breath and see what happens with the article. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Danielle Fong

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Hopelessly promotional, and attempts to remove the puffery and leave an encyclopedic core have been repeatedly rejected by a series of spas and ip editors. much of it unencycopedic opinions about how clever she is, a good deal of it name-dropping about other people associated with her projects, extensive quotations to show "fantastic support" and the like, mostly about a minor power company that has not yet actually done anything, going to the extent of providing detail about the various grants that have been rejected. Since NOT ADVOCACY and NPOV are basic principles--policies much more important than details like the notability guideline, I think it's hopeless to have an article. If anyone thinks they can get a proper article, they're welcome to try, but it's beyond me.  DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of the references are promotionally worded pieces touting the subject as a Wonder Woman who founded a company! Unable to see how this qualifies for WP:BIO and WP:N based on these sources. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO, WP:NOTADVOCACY. Continual NPOV violations and edit warring to keep in promotional material and trivial unencyclopedic content. Also, see this statement by DGG at BLP noticeboard regarding the subject.  ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability is clearly established by an array of references from top tier sources. Tone could be more encyclopedic, sure, but perhaps it is accurately encyclopedic to describe Danielle as a far above average human. I would suggest that nearly the entire funding and development section be moved to the LightSail Energy article. Kevin143 (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete current incarnation without prejudice This version has seen appreciable gameplaying, and in a few cases, excessive trimming as well.  Neither suits any encyclopedia. She is clearly "notable enough" for something closer to a biography than the current mishmash is.  Collect (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, in so much as this has been done, would you switch your vote to keep for the current version of the page that's a bit less strange? Kevin143 (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * delete This person is marginally notable and is under severe promotional pressure.  It is not worth our effort to try to maintain this page in a neutral state. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Not seeing enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Marginally notable at best. There are plenty of Forbes' 30 under 30 lists every year. Edwardx (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It appears that the bulk of the promotional content about LightSail Energy has been removed from this page. The same goes for any promotional-sounding content about Fong. taa (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, the original state of the article was terrible and it will have to be watched carefully to make sure that the promotional stuff is not allowed to creep back in. However, there does seem to be enough material out there to support a brief biography.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC).
 * Keep, there might have been promotional material in this article, but Fong herself is clearly notable enough to merit a page, and it is extremely well sources. Wikinewby2017 (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly notable well over the threshold for a page. Current events re: LightSail hibernation make it more so. Should add more NPOV content re: LightSail founding and hibernation from these articles. Ryan (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. "Forbes' 30 under 30 in the Energy category" is a minor honour and does not help with notability. Sources are PR driven and / or passing mentions. Such content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wall Street Journal and a CNBC video feature? https://www.wsj.com/articles/energy-storage-startup-lightsail-plots-long-term-game-plan-1456110323 https://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/09/a-lot-of-hot-air-why-energy-storage-matters.html For an entrepreneur, what kinds of press hits are a better establisher of notability than that? I thought notability was very clearly established by the array of references on the previous version of the article and we should have preserved those references on the talk page. Can anyone else do that? I'm confused on the right way to copy and paste those from the previous version of the article. Kevin143 (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * UN High Level Council keynote? http://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/conferencessummits/sustainable-development-goals-summit-new-york-25-27-september-2015/watch/danielle-fong-lightsail-energy-ecosoc-high-level-segment-2012/1717208886001 As that's from 2012 I don't think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Kevin143 (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete There are hundreds of people on Forbes lists. Her company is mostly vaporware (pun notwithstanding). Moreover, she has been posting on Facebook to get people to spam this edit page to keep the article live. https://www.facebook.com/einfall/posts/10101226623548382?pnref=story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.65.20.101 (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The Forbes lists are just not a sign of notability. It seems like every time I turn around I learn of another one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The article in its current form did not strike me as out of place. Our culture has a problem with ambitious women, and it seems to me that strict application of the rules in this case is more an artifact of some biases people might not realise they have.  Please keep this article up.  131.111.5.181 (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete She seems like a wonderful person but her bio doesn't clear the bar for notability guidelines, let alone the NPOV and NOT ADVOCACY questions. She is young, but her main claim to fame seems to have raised money from notable Silicon Valley investors. Impressive networking skills and vision, but that's about it. The barrage of edit warring and ip also raises questions. Similarly the soliciting of votes to keep the page alive as mentioned is quite suspicious. Either way:
 * - Her company seems to have fizzled out. While unfortunate, can't deny makes it less important of a point to be a founder of. We can't have profile pages for every company in Silicon Valley whose founder raises money. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/lightsail-energy-cheap-compressed-air-storage-hibernation
 * - Forbes publishes a list of couple hundred people of "X under X" every year. There are multiple lists (Finance, Media, Etc). It's not a critically acclaimed honor, assigned by an independent set of jurors. We shouldn't treat Forbes awards meaningfully in general.
 * - Other profile pieces seems mostly PR pieces, comes with running any sort of company. Should be on the company page.
 * - Her blog seems largely inactive for the past few years and most of the posts are about her company. Would be surprised if she has any readership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.71.246.138 (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Fong is clearly notable enough. If these three people deserve wikipedia pages, then so does Fong.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Distler


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurent_Freidel


 * https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Nicolai_(Physiker)

11solar11 (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. 198.58.161.137 (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The third entry in the other stuff list is from German Wikipedia. I take it Hermann Nicolai doesn't have a page in the English version? AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hermann Nicolai should most certainly have an article here. He is Direktor of the Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik in Potsdam-Golm, a major research institution of the highest importance,and editor of a major journal.  Will certainly meet WP:PROF on many counts, and almost certainly GNG as well. The other two also  are physicists of considerable distinction, and will easily  meet WP:PROF. Even listing these for comparison indications the inability to realistically evaluate the subject--Fong's highest academic achievement was to drop out of a PhD program.     DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please avoid straw man arguments here, DGG. I am not saying Nicolai does not deserve an article.  I have also not said that Fong has higher achievements in academia than these professors.  The point I am making is that she is notable - at least as much so as those on this list.11solar11 (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Sufficient notability. Dilaton (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * even just now, garbage like this. really we need to delete  and salt  this. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Forbes and Wired are enough for GNG. Perhaps a 6 month lock on the article would prevent puffery by bad IP editors.198.58.161.137 (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment making a 30 under 30 list isn't enough to be notable. See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people) discussion. Would need significant coverage on her, not just a company announcement. If the AFD results in a delete, retarget to LightSail Energy of which she is founder. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage in The Chronicle Herald , MIT Technology Review , Wired (magazine)  , Wall Street Journal . Fortune (magazine) , Greentech Media , Huffington Post  (5 women you should know in STEM), The Atlantic . Almost all of these articles go into her history, with The Atlantic and others doing exclusive interviews with her. The articles also don't refer to her notability exclusively as a 30 under 30 either, but rather their own lists. I'll add that the previously expanded article had an excessive amount of peacock, and was rightfully WP:TNTed or relegated to her business article, and stuff like "enjoying Burning Man" should definitely not be in the article unless she personally worked on Burning Man in a significant manner. But she is still notable and easily meets WP:GNG on the coverage from the media.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC) updated 18:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've blanked out the awards from her infobox. Also added connected contributor tag on her talk page. I would support page-protection so that only editors who can edit in a NPOV way can contribute, at least to get the clamor coming from her advocates on Twitter. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Huffington Post is notoriously unusable as a RS for notability, because the editor makes a point of letting the contributors print what they want. The Chronicle-Herald is a local paper celebrating a local person; MIT Review is an interview where she says what she pleases--these never show notability  because they are customarily placed by PR agents; Ditto the others. "Go into her history" means she tells them the samething each time, just like all PR. "Exclusive interview" means nothing more than interview, not a press conference.    And their own lists don't mean any more than the Forbes list--it's just a convenient format to provide a place for several PR items that don't merit full articles in the paper--smany newspapers do have some standards for these things.    DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.