Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Smidt


 * 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.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 03:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Eric Smidt

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

i fail to see how Smidt is notable on his own, virtually all sources discussing him, do so directly in relation to Harbor Freight, if at all. This should be deleted and redirected to the company. PRAXIDICAE🌈 09:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE (Harbor Freight is not a Fortune 500 company). I honestly don't even think it should redirect to the company, as it's a common name and an unlikely search target for someone looking for Harbor Freight, and he won't always be CEO. I think a better redirect target might be Smidt Tech, given that it's literally named after him (though I have questions about the reliability of that article too). - Aoidh (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I believe that the article achieves WP:GNG for the reasons that articles on founders of similar companies achieve WP:GNG. For example, the articles about John Menard Jr. and  Johnny Morris, the founders of Menards and Bass Pro Shops, appear to feature similar content as in this article. There is an understandable reference to each founder's business, followed by content and citations to significant coverage, in reliable sources independent of the subject, about each founder outside of his work with his company, including citations regarding politics, community work, and personal life. - David Stargell (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of buzz words, but how about a link to one of these amazing sources? –– FormalDude   talk   15:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The current article cites, among other sources, the Los Angeles Daily News, the Los Angeles Business Journal, Guidestar, LA Weekly, and Inside Philanthropy. These citations are mostly for news events related to the individual and separate from the company. The article could be improved by adding links to additional content applicable to the individual, such as new links from the Wall Street Journal or Bloomberg. Overall, the content and sources in this article appear similar to other articles of similar founders that achieve WP:GNG, which is why it seems this article also achieves WP:GNG. David Stargell (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Los Angeles Daily News – Trival mention, not significant coverage.
 * Los Angeles Business Journal – Doesn't mention Smidt at all.
 * Guidestar – Obviously a tax form does not count towards notability.
 * LA Weekly – This reads like an opinion piece.
 * Bloomberg – See WP:Perennial sources.
 * That leaves WSJ and Inside Philanthropy, both of which I'm unsure about. –– FormalDude   talk   22:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments on each source:
 * Wall Street Journal: The article is focused on the subject about a notable item separate from his company. The WSJ is a reliable source independent of the subject.
 * Inside Philanthropy: The article is focused on the subject about a notable item separate from his company. Inside Philanthropy is a reliable source independent of the subject.
 * Bloomberg: The link at left is a specific article within Bloomberg that is focused on the subject, about a notable item separate from his company. Bloomberg is a reliable source independent of the subject. To address the comment above, this link is a specific article and not the Bloomberg profile.
 * Los Angeles Daily News: The mention appears to exceed trivial and meet the "significant coverage" standard by nature of the subject's role in an initiative that was notable and heavily debated in Los Angeles for multiple years. The reference addresses the subject in detail and requires no original research.
 * Guidestar: Agreed and point taken.
 * LA Weekly: I think this article is consistent with the style of LA Weekly, which is a notable independent newspaper in the Los Angeles area. The article is about the subject, independent from his company, and the facts in the article appear relevant in the same manner as similar founders' political funding to their own Wikipedia articles.
 * Los Angeles Business Journal: The link at left is a different link from the one above from the same source. This article is a profile that contains multiple significant notable items separate from his company. The Los Angeles Business Journal is a reliable source independent of the subject.
 * On balance, I think the articles above, save Guidestar, support WP:GNG and would be consistent with the support for articles about similar founders. David Stargell (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked through the sources you listed, and aside from Bloomberg, all of those are absolutely trivial mentions that do not contribute to WP:GNG. That other individuals have articles is not a reason to keep this one. - Aoidh (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've looked at each of the links again and they appear to support WP:GNG. For example, the WSJ, Bloomberg, Inside Philanthropy, and LA Weekly articles are all directly about the subject, and no original research is needed to extract the content. These articles themselves are original research and not from a newswire service. This appears to meet the definition of WP:SIGCOV. The articles discuss notable items about the subject beyond his work at his company. The links also cover the subject over several years, which shows that the subject has attracted attention over a significant period of time. David Stargell (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete: per my evaluation of sources above. –– FormalDude   talk   22:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: CEO and philanthropist of Smidt's coverage and prominence seems in the spirit of WP:GNG. Consider adding mention to Smidt's profile of his gift to the Holocaust_Museum_LA cited here: NBC Los Angeles, here: The Chronical of Philanthropy, and here: Spectrum News 1 - Razomatic (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * These are almost all press releases. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * While none of the three appear to be press releases, maybe pick the one(s) that aren't. Razomatic (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * this and this is a word for word copy of a press release, distributed to multiple sources. Unless of course you think all of them have no journalistic integrity and just copy the other. Not to mention this isn't even substantially about him. But by all means tell me how a widely distributed press release by City News Service isn't a press release. PRAXIDICAE🌈  20:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * City News Service is a regional news service in Southern California. It is not a PR service. I'm basing this on reviewing its website and in reviewing the archive of content it's provided to Los Angeles media outlets (see this example of its content on the website of the ABC affiliate in Los Angeles). The articles from City News Service appear to be hard news, including local politics, the state of the local economy, and reports about local crime. It's reasonable that an article from City News Service, which is basically a Southern California version of the Associated Press, would be picked up by multiple local news outlets. David Stargell (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You've miraculously missed the point that all of the sources are the same wording because it's a press release. PICKLEDICAE🥒 23:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Two items:
 * The article from City News Service (link here, via NBC LA) appears distinct from Holocaust Museum LA's article (link here). The differences between these two articles seems to indicate that the City News Service article is not a press release.
 * This donation appears to have been covered by multiple independent sources that have different content from what's on Holocaust Museum LA's website. For an example, here's a detailed write-up from Philanthropy News Digest, with more detailed write-up than either Holocaust Museum LA's website or the City News Service article.
 * In summary, this article from City News Service is an additional independent source in support of WP:GNG. The current sources are independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage of the subject. David Stargell (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nomination, pr and press releases, fails WP:SIGCOV. Shaniquagreen (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep For his philanthropy, this should stay. In addition to the $5 million gift the Smidt Foundation gave the Holocaust Museum LA in June ‘22, he gifted $25 million to LACMA in 2016. LA Times link: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-cm-lacma-smidt-gift-20161028-story.html Olivia Goldberg (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Due to source analysis by FormalDude. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Unless sources that provide more intepennntend coverage are found, 'Delete. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The NBC Los Angeles article cited above is now in the article, along with the existing independent and reliable sources. The amount of independent sources listed appears to show that this article meets WP:GNG.
 * David Stargell (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Press release concerns mentioned above aside, that is absolutely trivial coverage and in no way contributes to the notability of the subject. If this is the calibre of coverage that is being used to justify the article, it is clear there isn't enough there to have an article. - Aoidh (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The references in the article prior to this discussion appeared to support WP:GNG. The additional article from NBC LA (provided through a news service, not a PR firm) is additional support for what appears to have been sufficient to show WP:GNG in the existing article per WP:BEFORE. Item D in WP:BEFORE indicates that a basic Google search or Google News search should provide sufficient sources to prove notability. In this case, both a Google search and a Google News search show a volume of content about the subject, including many articles linked in the existing article before this discussion. Item D3 further indicates that the mentions should be beyond passing references, and the references in the article pass that threshold. The references, both existing and new after this discussion started, feature the subject as the subject of the article. - David Stargell (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not additional support, it is literally a trivial mention and does not contribute to notability in any capacity; per WP:GNG that source adds no value to a consideration of notability. As discussed above, the references, including the press releases and other sources FormalDude evaluated above are not sufficient for various reasons, and the number of WP:GHITS is irrelevant to the notability of a subject. Notability is not and has never been based on "volume of content". - Aoidh (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The support for WP:GNG in this case is beyond "volume of content." The subject of this article has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, including at minimum the articles directly about the subject in the WSJ (feature articles, not a bio index page), Bloomberg (the feature article, not a bio index page), Inside Philanthropy, and the LA Business Journal. The subject's volume of WP:GHITS is presented as intended, as additional support in evaluating WP:GNG versus an independent case for it. The articles directly about the subject appear to indicate non-triviality, and even articles where he is not the subject (like political action) would tend toward non-triviality. In reviewing the sum of the evidence, including the multiple articles featuring the subject from reliable sources on a regional & national level, the case is stronger for WP:GNG than for the counter. - David Stargell (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You're repeating the same refuted arguments, the WSJ piece is trivial. Bloomberg is problematic as a likely SPS and doesn't muster WP:GNG. The Inside Philanthropy piece, outside of the quotes directly from him (non-independent), is trivial. The LA Business Journal article you're referring to doesn't even mention him, at all! This is a bunch of noise. Granted, there's a lot of the noise being thrown into the mix, but when you sit and look at each source on its merits, every single one falls short of being a reliable, independent third-party source that has significant coverage of this article's subject. You can't just list off a bunch of publisher names as if that creates notability anymore than you can appeal to the "volume of content". This is not a notable topic; naming publishers without context does not change this. WP:GHITS is presented as intended? It is not "additional support", it is the same level of support that the sources in the article provide: none at all. Searching "Eric Smidt" could return 8 billion results, and that wouldn't matter one iota in terms of notability, so mentioning how many results are returned on a Google search is meaningless. We're not going to agree, so let's just agree to disagree, because your explanation as to why this article is notable is not in keeping with Wikipedia's definition of notability, independence, or triviality. - Aoidh (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A plain reading of the links above & the sources listed prior to this discussion supports WP:GNG. The WSJ article is about the subject directly and mentions him by name in the subhead. The Bloomberg article is about the subject directly and mentions him by name in the subhead, and the tone & content of the article demonstrate it's not SPS. The Inside Philanthropy article is about the subject and mentions him by name in the first paragraph. The LABJ article is about the subject directly and mentions him by name at the start. These are a sample of the articles available via search that establish WP:GNG, and the article as it was prior to the discussion contained significant references about the subject from multiple independent sources, which supported and supports WP:GNG. - David Stargell (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to go in circles with you about these same sources over and over. It has already been explained why those sources do not contribute to the notability of the subject. Your editing history is uniquely focused on this subject and surrounding topics; I would suggest editing more outside of the scope of this topic and to get a better understanding of what notability is on Wikipedia and what kind of sources are expected. - Aoidh (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's mainly to clarify some of the points above about the sources cited above. For example, a lot of this thread went to explaining that City News Service is a news wire (as indicated correctly on its Wikipedia page) and not a PR firm, which readers living in Los Angeles would know based on their use of other media, but which those outside of Los Angeles may not know. To help with evaluating WP:GNG for this or any other article, it seems helpful to clarify something that's as critical to a source's credibility as whether or not it's news. I recognize and appreciate that you do not agree with the view that this article is WP:GNG. I encourage a plain reading of the sources listed in this discussion & previously in the article. - David Stargell (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Newspapers.com brings up some coverage, see for example this detailed article on the front page of the LA Times (part 2) and this article in the Santa Maria Times. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The LA Times article is just the print version of the LA Times article discussed above and the second source (which is by the AP and can be found digitally on other sites such as here) is about a lawsuit and has trivial content about Eric Smidt, mentioning of some allegations; the meat of that text is the lawsuit itself, nothing useful about Eric Smidt can be gleaned from it. - Aoidh (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets GNG. Notable CEO of a large company of 1300 stores.  Bobherry  Talk   My Edits  00:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Harbor Freight is not a Fortune 500 company, so per WP:NBUSINESSPERSON being the CEO of the company does not create notability, no matter how many stores they operate. - Aoidh (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to mention notability is NOTINHERITED. –– FormalDude  (talk)  04:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:GNG. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I can only find one article that is significantly about him: "Rough road to philanthropy; Early obstacles set the stage for businessman Eric Smidt, whose $25-million gift gives LACMA a boost. Fleishman, Jeffrey. Los Angeles Times; Los Angeles, Calif. [Los Angeles, Calif]. 29 Oct 2016: A.1." ebsco link. Most of the references in the article are not RS - They are: his company site; prnewswire; some links for organizations mentioned in the article but that say nothing about him; a fair number of 404's. So, if another one or two significant RSs are found, then the item of work is to remove all of the essentially unreferenced information. Lamona (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2022 (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.