Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Weinstein


 * 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 keep. The Bushranger One ping only 02:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Eric Weinstein

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

He just doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. PROD previously removed — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * His only notable contribution seems to be the equivalence of some economic theories with guage theories in physics. His non-standard theories seem to have no significant support or opposition.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete his theories have not generated enough coverage to show notability for them. Nothing else comes close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you care to explain THIS? Carrite (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep nineteen references that demonstrate notability.Racklever (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of the references support facts about him, but those facts do not necessarily indicate notability. In other words, not a reason to keep.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; I recall his "Geometric Unity" making a fairly big splash in the pop-science media at the time (2013), mostly on account of all the scientists saying how unprofessional the whole affair was. (Some sample reactions collected here: .) And after that splash, it sank without a trace. So, while one might plausibly argue that he is notable for his notoriety, I am sympathetic to the argument that that incident was one event, without sustained interest. I don't think his ideas about gauge theory and economics have attracted enough attention to make Weinstein notable by WP:PROF. The CV on his website is ancient (2003 (!)), and checking the papers listed there on GS, the citation counts are 10, 42, 120, and 18 (GS couldn't find some of them at all). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't think one can make case here for notability on WP:ACADEMIC grounds, but the subject does pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. This is not a WP:BIO1E situation. There has been plenty of coverage of him in the media over the years quite unrelated to the 2013 "theory of everything" episode. E.g. here is a 2015 Capital Public Radio in-depth piece specifically and in detail about him Talking About Death Over Dinner. He was also a key figure in the August 2017 Google memo story& controversy about the treatment of women in Silicon Valley and the Tech Industry. Here are a few samples People Responded Perfectly To Mathematician’s Sexist Tweet About That Google Memo, 'Stop teaching my girl to complain to HR' tweet raked on Twitter. Etc. There are many other examples where he is quoted in the media because of his role as the Managing Director of Thiel Capital. Overall there is certainly enough coverage, in depth, detail and in duration, to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep under WP:GNG. The chap is Managing Director, of Thiel Capital, the investment firm of Peter Theil! He is quite a prolific writer of think pieces, with three essays at Big Think, one of the contributors to the Edge's yearly survey question. Was recently subject of a Vox interview.. Here is another interview by on a week show by Tim Ferriss. --Salix alba (talk): 20:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nsk92, plenty of evidence that this individual is sufficiently notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think when The Guardian runs a headline like THIS, the question of whether the subject fulfills GNG is pretty much resolved. Carrite (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep He may or may not meet WP:ACADEMIC but he meets the GNG, and the encyclopedia is better with this biography as a result. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: As as a reader, a user of Wikipedia as a resource, I found the presence of this article useful. I came across Eric Weinstein speaking on a podcast to topics largely outside of his professional/academic fields and found it valuable to be able to look him up on en:Wikipedia and learn of other aspects of his life and accomplishments. Hence, I support keeping the Eric Weinstein article because for me (and by extension potentially for other readers as well) in practice it provides encyclopedic value. --75.188.199.98 (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Withdraw (although, with two delete comments, I really can't). It would be nice if some of the material indicating notability would make it to the article, per requests over a year old.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2017 (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.