Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Skibiski


 * 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. Even discounting the SPAs there isn't a consensus here. There may be a case for a merge discussion though, as pointed out by the final comment in the AfD. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Greg Skibiski

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. The article has a number of references, but they are about the company and only briefly quote the subject of the article. Appears to fail WP:BIO.  ttonyb (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Methinks the lady doth protest too much.....it is obvious the author is the man himself, and this forum too important a source to allow self promotion - delete! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.12.46 (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)  — 24.239.12.46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - Agreed. I am familiar with the company and the bio is exaggerated, at best.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.246.209.213 (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)  — 75.246.209.213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - Would you mind pointing out specifically which statements and references are exaggerated, with a reference to back you up that contradicts the references listed? Otherwise these kind of comments above have no value.Petersongl3 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Agreed. No notable achievements, referencing an Israeli start up for an American entrepreneur? Seems a very obvious attempt to use Wikipedia for self promotion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telavivtalker (talk • contribs) 22:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)  — Telavivtalker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - I do not see what is exaggerated about it, since every fact is backed by airtight reference. Recommend to keep the page and add more about Skibiski's innovations. Seems the references were all done incorrectly at first, now fixed. 450zuck (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - New references added in response to above comments Petersongl3 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Also familiar with the company and the bio is completely exaggerated. Most of the notoriety at Sense Networks is due to Tony Jebara (Director of Machine Learning at Columbia University) and Sandy Pentland (Head of Human Dynamics at MIT Media Lab). The PR is primarily fluff pieces, at best.  I thought Linkedin was for resumes, not Wikipedia.  Furthermore, the author didn't even bother to fact check the article.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groundtruth 1 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)  — Groundtruth 1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - May I ask what references you are basing that statement on? In MIT Technology Insider (August 2008) from Pentland's own university stated that "The idea for CitySense started back in 2002, when Skibiski, a software developer who has run a global hedge-fund conference for several years, approached Pentland with the idea that data being collected by mobile phones and GPS devices could be useful to economists." Petersongl3 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - This article you've mentioned appears to have at least one factual error...per the other references that cite 2006 as the founding of the company, not 2002.Groundtruth 1 (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - You continue to make claims, but you have not yet provided a single reference to back up your positions. 450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Also, I don't understand why you changed his title to co-founder, when the company's most recent press release bearing Skibiski's name (June 30, 2009, as has been cited in the references) refers to him as "Founder and CEO", not co-founder. I propose that this would be the authoritative source on this matter, it being the last official release before he left the company.  Petersongl3 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Criteria: "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.", Skibiski was principal creator of the idea that there is value created by analyzing large amounts of location (lat, long) data from mobile phones, and built the first large scale system to do so (proving the idea), and the first consumer app to make that data available to the public, Citysense. He is lead inventor on those patent apps. Citysense has been praised as such in many first tier news sources, NYT, BusinessWeek, Newsweek, MIT Tech Review. There was no notable prior art in the space before his patent apps and concepts were made public. Archived GNEWS on Citysense and Skibiski is more relevant, as he left the company in November '09. Appears to pass WP:BIO with recent edits.     450zuck (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - http://www.technologyreview.com/infotech/19968/?a=f - clearly states that the idea was prior to 2007 (90's) and belongs to Sandy Pentland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telavivtalker (talk • contribs)  — Telavivtalker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - There is nothing in here about prior art involving big data, which it seems is the point. Also, if it were Pentland's existing ideas being used to start the company, the company would be listed as assignee on his patents. Petersongl3 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I was the original author, thank you Ttonyb1 for your assistance is making this conform to standards. I have never authored a Wikipedia page before. In updating this page, I hope it now conforms to the notable person standard, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." It also said I needed to add one quality reference to have the page taken off the delete list, and I added several from sources of the highest reputability.


 * In the references I cited, which are independent global news sources, Mr. Skibiski is indisputably presented as a world renown thought leader and innovator. He has been featured New York Times many times for his notable innovations and patent pending technologies (he is lead inventor as mentioned above, which is referenced to the US Patent Office). The NYT published a photograph of him in the Sunday New York Times Business Section alongside a major article on his work and how it has changed the world's perceptions of large data analytics, among the many other times he has been quoted by New York Times on such subjects at Google's business strategy.
 * He is also featured as a revolutionary innovator in BusinessWeek magazine, where he has had his picture printed twice in the print edition, and has had a major feature article on his work, among several other print citations and quotes. Newsweek has also published a five page story on his novel techniques to analyzing data from mobile phones that was featured on the cover of the international print edition of that magazine. He lead a company that counts as employees the Academic Head of the MIT Media Lab, and the Head of Machine Learning at Columbia University.


 * Further, I have cited him as published in the recent Aspen Institute book "The Promise and Peril of Big Data" (the book is a reference recently deleted?). The Aspen Institute is one of the world's most prestigious think tanks. Generally only global political and industry leaders are invited to speak at the Institute (http://www.aspeninstitute.org/). His peers in creating this publication are Esther Dyson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Dyson), Hal Varian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Varian), John Seely Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seely_Brown), Joi Ito (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joi_Ito) and Bill Coleman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_T._Coleman_III).


 * I believe this complies with your sensible mandate that he must have received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent". I also feel I have conformed with precedents set by similar Wikipedia pages at this stage of development. Thank you again. Petersongl3 (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – Unfortunately, none of the articles amount to "non-trivial" coverage of the subject of the article.  ttonyb  (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ttonyb1, thank you I will add further references later today. However, if Skibiski is lead inventor of these technologies (and it appears that according to the US Patent & Trademark Office, as referenced, he is), then these major feature articles in BusinessWeek, Newsweek, New York Times, indeed would amount to "non-trivial" coverage of Mr. Skibiski's original accomplishments. Petersongl3 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The New York Times and BusinessWeek print editions both featured prominent color photos of Mr. Skibiski, which seems also to confirm the fact that "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.", which is the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. It is a significant new concept, because it is the subject of major articles in NYT and BusinessWeek. The person is known for originating it, because Mr. Skibiski's photo is featured, in the case of BusinessWeek print edition, twice in the same issue. Petersongl3 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith requires me to assume that you are not connected with either the subject of the article or the company referred to. Peridon (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC) (This comment refers to Petersongl3 not Ttonyb1)
 * Comment - I do not know Skibiski but many people would consider me an expert in the space. I am working on a series of Wikipedia pages. Petersongl3 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC) * — 71.232.77.86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Strong Keep - Like a typical entrepreneur, he is working on a stealth project right now and doesn't want any press during this period. As for originating a new concept and being widely appreciated for such, he spoke at Web 2.0 Summit in 2008, two people before Al Gore on the main stage, talking about his techniques for analyzing GPS data, showing graphs (theres one amazing graph on slideshare), people were wowed.  71.232.77.86 (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – The project might be in stealth mode, but the article is about an individual. Without verifiability there is nothing to support the article.  How does speaking at Web 2.0 Summit in 2008 meet the requirements of WP:BIO?  ttonyb  (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - The New York Times, Business Week, Forbes, Newsweek, etc. references to Mr. Skibiski appear to be reliable and independent enough for me. Mandsford 19:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – None of the references meet the criteria in WP:RS.  ttonyb  (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Are you really saying that those publications are not reliable sources for subjects in the field of business? There may be a discussion to be had about whether the sources have the significant coverage required for notability, but they indubitably meet the requirements of WP:RS. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – I don't think a few sporadic articles are that compelling. The company's website doesn't even list him any longer . And, all the articles are about the company, not the person. Googsearch (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC) — googsearch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I agree that if this person were a VP at the company, there would be no argument. However, he was the sole founder of the company in the beginning, and the original ideas are attributed to him. This is confirmed because he is lead inventor on the company's three patent applications (referenced). 450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would he be listed on the company's executive bios page if he didn't work there anymore?  450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - When the top of the charts ghits for a 'leader of world' whatever are LinkedIn, crunchbase and the company site, I start to wonder. There's a lot of facebook, 123people, flickr and such self-edited stuff following on closely. Good PR work, but makes me wonder, as I said. Not got time at the moment to go wading amongst this dross (from the Wikipedia point of view) but should get back to it on Saturday if work permits. Peridon (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - This appears to be a self-promoting article. Regardless, useful to compare the google search results with people in the article. Google search "Joi Ito", 184,000 search results; "Esther Dyson", 146,000 results, "Greg Skibiski", 13,000.  This is a simple gut check that this article is not notable.Googsearch (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC) — googsearch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I can do even better than that. Before 2008, Greg Sibiski NONE, Esther Dyson and Joi Ito lots and lots  .  I don't know why he gets coverage now.  Mandsford 01:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO specifically states, Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking). 71.192.46.7 (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC) — 71.192.46.7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:BIO also specifically states that the person must be the subject of published secondary material. The person is not the subject of the articles referenced, the company is.  They must have had a killer PR rep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groundtruth 1 (talk • contribs)
 * Agreed, however, check out general notability guidelines which states that "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Also, WP:SBST states that "it does not need to have ongoing coverage". 450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - Using Wikipedia itself as a precedent, compared to Dennis Crowley Skibiski's page is much better referenced. I feel minimum standard has been met. 71.192.46.7 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – your assumption is incorrect, each article must stand on it's own merits and this article appears to fail to meet WP:BIO. See WP:WAX.   ttonyb  (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – I have made some modifications, and added on regarding Skibiski's initial theories and analysis techniques that lead to the founding of the company. 450zuck (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails general notability guidelines. References include many primary sources, press releases, and articles about the company that either briefly mention the subject, or do not mention them at all.  Chzz  ►  10:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – I agree that Skibiski himself is not the main topic of much of the source material, but the material is on the topic of his ideas as founder of the company. General notability guidelines states that "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material".  Several sources presented are reliable, independent sources, and in a number of them his ideas, as founder and lead inventor on the patents, are discussed in more than a "trivial mention". These ideas are notable and consistent across the sources. 450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – You stated that some of the articles do not mention him at all, could you give more specifics? I found two that don't, however they refer to specific awards the company received. It seems all the rest do, including several secondary sources listed in Current Science and Technology Sources. 450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – This article is beyond correction at this point. It's now officially a self-promoting fluff piece with several untrue statements that I'm too lazy to fix since this should be deleted anyway (e.g. according to the company's website, it wasn't even around until 2006).  Relying on non fact-checked press and self-provided "facts" is dangerous (the company "trading" on the data).  Dennis Crowley is far more notable and his Wikipedia page is a quarter of this one. It's clear that either the subject himself, or someone close to the subject is responsible for this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groundtruth 1 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)  — Groundtruth 1 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment – Groundtruth 1, and Telavivtalker, I have changed back several of your recent edits. You made changes to properly referenced material (that was nearly verbatim from the secondary source), and you did not supply any reference to support your changes, once again. Further, your unsubstantiated negative comments put the subject of this article in a bad light. If you continue to make negative changes without listing a source, I will report you. This talk page as well is a public document and appropriate comments should be referenced, especially in alleging negative things about a living person. This is very much in bad faith. Your opinion and experience doesn't matter. If it's not from a secondary source, it means nothing in this forum. 450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Groundtruth 1, and Telavivtalker, consider this approach to contributing: WP:1XL, "if the page does not appear to be notable, and you believe it should be deleted, the best way to get the page deleted is to prove that. Simply having no references on the page may not be grounds for deletion; you will have to demonstrate that none can ever likely be found. As for articles with a single external link to the subject's own site or MySpace page, this may very well be self-promotion (as in the case of the garage band)."  450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – I also removed your comment "now defunct". Again you provided no source of any kind for your negative comment, and I couldn't find one to support that. In fact, Citysense is on my iPhone right now. Also, refer to the Sense Networks website, prominently featuring Citysense. Admins, can we do something about this? This is a waste of time and it is becoming apparent there is bad faith involved. 450zuck (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete on grounds of dubious notability and probable (self?) promotion. If he doesn't want publicity at the moment because of a secret project, I'll go with that too. Personally, I can't see how this thingy works anyway - how does the lat and long of a mobile tell anyone what and where people are buying stuff? I frequently have to pass through shopping areas (and industrial areas) without making a single purchase. Or is it that 'app' for finding which bar everyone's going to? (I don't have apps of any sort and don't want them - but can usually find a quiet bar for myself.) There are a few different things going about under the name 'CitySense', the top ghit I find being "An Open, Urban-Scale Sensor Network Testbed" from Harvard. Don't ask me to explain it... Peridon (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I met this guy at a summit, and he is definitely the type to write a wiki bio about himself - especially now that he is unemployed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nokia22 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Amazing how many people here seem to know him, and yet he appears non-notable... Peridon (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed - some of which have not edited in years, but have decided to join this debate - .  Chzz  ►  04:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - agree that for a non-notable person there are a lot of strong opinions. anyway, skibiski's notability is debatable outside specialized tech realms but seems there is potential; "deletion of an article should be a last resort in the event that the article's topic is not notable AND has no potential for its own encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia"      87.221.113.74 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC) — 87.221.113.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment – Just because there are opposite opinions about his notability does not mean he is notable. I have yet to see anyone pose a good argument that supports his meeting Wikipedia criteria. I cannot presume to know if there is potential for this article to meet the criteria; however, I can focus on the fact that in spite of all the SPA (and apparent COI) "vote" activity, no one has contributed to the article to bring it up to Wikipedia criteria.   ttonyb  (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources seem to check out: a fair proportion, although by no means all, of the 26 sources in the article cover the guy in detail, and most seem independent and reliable. As such I can only conclude that he passes WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge & redirect to Sense Networks. The articles are largely the same and though there are a number of WP:RS-appropriate citations here, tey almost all deal with the company/product and few deal with the person beyond a few quotes. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:44, 21 May 2010 (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.