Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hemant Taneja (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hemant Taneja
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

BLP of a venture capitalist that was deleted at AfD in 2013. There is more material now but much of the sourcing here is corporate announcements. Quite a few of the refs don’t mention him at all, and there are a lot of passing mentions. There may be a GNG pass somewhere in all of this but with all the refbombing I’m not really sure. Mccapra (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - As the author of the article, I apologize. I didn't realize that there was a bio that was deleted previously. It looks like, at that time, he had not received substantial press coverage. However, Taneja is at this point an established expert in VC, edtech and healthtech, and has been covered as such. See:
 * Recent, long-form profile of Taneja and his business partner by Katie Jennings of Forbes (link)
 * Long-form Q&A in Boston Business Journal (link)
 * Longform Q&A in Coinbase (link)
 * WSJ coverage of Livongo (link)


 * Additionally, respected publications have included him in "notable" lists, including the New York Times/Crunchbase(link), the Forbes Midas List (2020 link)and Business Insider (link). While I understand that these lists do not in-and-of-themselves denote notability, they're legitimate, third-party (not PR-driven) validation of Taneja's prominence in the industry.


 * Also, while not qualification for notability alone, Taneja is quoted regularly by journalists in the VC/healthcare space, and featured as a key voice on disruption, edtech and investing. He is widely recognized as an expert in his field. See:
 * Quotes in in The Economist (link) or TechCrunch (link)
 * TechCrunch coverage of Taneja's 2016 INNOVATE talk (link)
 * CNBC featured expert on crypto (link)
 * Featured member of Barron's VC roundtable (link)
 * Featured in NPR's program on disruptive innovation (link)


 * Finally, his investments get substantial reputable coverage, and Taneja is featured regularly. See NYT on Snapchat (link), Bloomberg on Olive (link), WSJ on Grammarly (link), or TechCrunch on Digit (link), among others. WisePraline (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * My apologies, but one more. He was also featured in MIT Spectrum for his philanthropy. (link). WisePraline (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep appears to be a thought leader who has helped bring some major companies to market. I wish he had that big, glowing profile but those are so hard to come by these days anyway. Miaminsurance (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — MarkH21talk 05:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete A paid for article. Not a thought-leader and bringing companies to market isn't an indication of notability. The first 10 references are very poor.
 * 1) Search listing. Non-RS.
 * 2) Profile listing
 * 3) ] Another profile. Not independent.
 * 4) Company position for funding. This is a BLP.
 * 5) An interview. Not independebt.
 * 6) Company news.
 * 7) As a company reference is fails WP:ORGIND.
 * 8) Another company page.
 * 9) Same ref 4 as above.
 * 10) An announcement to say he has moved to SF.

Not a single secondary source amongst the lot of them. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV, [{WP:BIO]]. It is brochure articles disguised as a BLP.  scope_creep Talk  16:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the well argued points of the editor who made the Strong delete argument above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I obviously disagree with the idea that this is a paid article (and concerns about this and NPOV have already been discussed and addressed in the article) but to the other points that Scope creep raises:
 * MIT Profile (#2 above) MIT Spectrum is not a profile listing. I'm not proposing that it alone is RS, but it's not a corporate profile.
 * Thought Leadership: I'm curious how Scope creep would define "Thought Leader" given that Taneja:
 * Contributes regularly to reputable publications like HBR and TechCrunch
 * Has published two books, which have been featured by editors at reputable publications like the MIT Sloan Management Review, as well as academic pubs (American Health and Drug Benefits), and are sourced in journal articles (The Business and Management Review)
 * Is, again, regularly used by reputable journalists and experts as a source, including Barron's VC Roundtable, NPR, etc.
 * Venture Capitalist Notability: I disagree strongly that building, investing in and "bringing companies to market" is not an indication of notability in the venture capital space. A quick review of Existing VCs on Wikipedia produces hundreds of individuals who are notable specifically because they have built, invested in and brought companies to market.
 * I should note that I would welcome input from the community on how to improve the article (and have, again, already worked with multiple editors to do so, and will continue to do so). However, I fail to see how a quick review of a handful references is at all an argument for a "strong delete." (Please pardon/feel free to correct any formatting issues here.) WisePraline (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Jumping back in here to note that I've also begun to overhaul the sources in the article, including additional profiles of Taneja and cutting less reputable sources. WisePraline (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep just because someone is not a household name, it doesn't mean they aren't notable (I've run into this issue with contributions); Taneja is notable in finance and that should be taken into consideration Pogobryan (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Saying keep without evidence to support verification of fact is against policy and is egregious. This editor is WP:SPA.   scope_creep Talk  10:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The paper at is only cited by two people,  which is a remarkably low cite count for even people in the financial industry. The Sloan review is not in-depth, like most of the coverage. Since there has been an attempt at WP:HEY, lets look at the references again:


 * Ref 1: It is a blog. It is not independent.
 * Ref 2: This one is contentious as it is an alumni magazine.
 * Ref 3: An announcement to say he has moved to SF. It is also a press-release.
 * Ref 4: It is an announcement. Press-release.
 * Ref 5: 40 under 40. These X of Y articles went out with the ark. Really low-quality ref.
 * Ref 6: An investment notice, press-release. Non-RS. This a BLP.
 * Ref 7: Taneja tells FORBES Not-independent.
 * Ref 8: Snapchat is the company that will figure out how to move TV viewers to mobile,” said Hemant Taneja, a Snapchat investor and managing director at the venture firm General Catalyst Partners. “YouTube and others have worked hard to bring video to mobile devices, but Snapchat is the first to crack how users behave on mobile. Not in-depth.
 * Ref 9: Not in-depth. A passing mention.
 * Ref 10: Press-release.
 * Ref 11: Hemant Taneja of General Catalyst Partner came in at No. 70 on the list.  Not in-depth.
 * Ref 12: Non-RS. Forbes contributor.
 * Ref 13: Non-RS. Forbes contributor.
 * Ref 14: An interview.
 * Ref 15: We think that companies like Livongo can reduce healthcare costs by $100 billion in diabetes alone,” said Taneja in a statement. Not-independent.

So of the first 15 references, 3 are dependent sources, 5 are non-rs, 3 are press-releases, 1 is an interview, 1 an alumni magazine and 1 is an X of Y references which are the lowest quality ref that is possible to get (simply there generate clickbait). Another very poor attempt at WP:HEY.  scope_creep Talk  10:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment -, Could you point me to a WP definition of "press release" and "independent" please? We have material differences in understanding and WP:Reliable sources isn't turning anything up. Specifically, I'm concerned with your definitions of the following sources:
 * Ref 1: Silicon Valley Business Journal is not a blog. It's part of the American City Business Journals newspaper chain and has a clear editorial masthead. The writer of the piece is the editor in charge of startup/tech coverage for the paper. It is independent.
 * Ref 3: Xconomy is not a press release. It is literally a news article on the person in question, written again by an independent journalist.
 * Ref 4: Again, American City Business Journals, different (again independent) journalist. Not a blog.
 * Ref 6: Alex Konrad is the senior editor at Forbes covering venture capital. He is an independent journalist, writing a story about a significant player in the venture capital space.
 * Ref 8: Ingred Lunden is an independent TechCrunch journalist covering venture capital. This is a T1 tech publication writing an independent article about a significant technology company, of which Taneja is an investor.
 * Ref 14: Katie Jennings is a staff writer at Forbes. This is a feature article on Taneja in a leading business publication.
 * Ref 15: At the risk of [beating a dead horse here, TechCrunch is an independent magazine and website, and this is an article written about Taneja's company being launched, covered by [Jonathan Shieber, who is, again, a reputable tech journalist who feels Taneja and his company are worth coverage.
 * WisePraline (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 00:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC) :: You are what is known as a WP:SPA in Wikipedia. All you do ever is work on that article and I honestly don't know if you know what good reference is. The fact that you don't know what independent means, means that you never even looked at the notability policies. Biographies of living people require multiple in-depth reliable sources about them that are independent of the subject. All that is seen her, tons of paid advocacy.  scope_creep Talk  11:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Scope creep: Did you ping the wrong user? ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 12:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I did indeed. Thanks for pointing that out.    scope_creep Talk  12:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clear it up, Scopecreep headed to my talk page to explain the mixup and there are no hard feelings. :) Vaticidalprophet 15:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

u|Scope_creep I've read the notability policies multiple times, both before writing the article, and while trying to figure out how anyone could insist that Taneja isn't notable. My comments around defining press release and independent were tongue-in-cheek, because I believe that you're using the terms incorrectly.

As I wrote before, I'm happy to work with you to improve the article, because I think that it's for the best of Wikipedia. However, the discussion here is whether Hemant Taneja is notable and whether this article should be deleted. It should not be:


 * Hemant Taneja is a venture capitalist and entrepreneur that is well known enough to meet the criteria outlined across WP:BLP, WP:BIO and (especially) WP:Notability (people):


 * Taneja has received coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. As per my comment above, Taneja has been the subject of coverage in Forbes, TechCrunch and multiple smaller (but still unconflicted) sources, which meet the requirements of WP:Independent_sources.


 * While there is reason to dispute that certain sources, such as the 40 under 40 listing, articles about Taneja's portfolio companies, or the MIT Spectrum profile, would alone confer notability (as you have done), those articles are secondary and support only small points in his biography.

WisePraline (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't know if this is a paid-for article, but both the article and the Keep statements have many of the usual features of a paid-for article:
 * The Keep statements include walls of text that make it difficult to challenge the article.
 * The article has been reference-bombed with low-quality sources, which make it difficult to test the notability.
 * The subject is defended as a "thought leader", which is in itself a flag of marketing buzzspeak.
 * After reading the article, I still don't know what the subject does other than to invest money.
 * The article does not make a case for general notability, and the article should make that case without the reader having to wade through 37 references.


 * Comment - Thanks for your feedback . I've pared down the references significantly. Please let me know if you have other suggestions for improving the article.
 * Not sure how to respond to the allegations of verbosity though :)
 * (Also, minor point of order: Taneja was never referred to in-article as a "thought leader," and there isn't buzzspeak in the article. Another editor, with whom I have no association, raised the term) WisePraline (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: The analysis of each presented source show that there currently is insufficient significant coverage about Taneja from independent secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Also, none of the keep !votes really identify RS evidence that actually go towards this person satisfying a notability guideline.The closest that I could find are the two Forbes articles (1, 2); they are both similar in that most of the text is Taneja talking about specific companies rather than Forbes talking about Taneja. The second article falls short of being significant coverage, while the first article is right on the borderline. Altogether, there isn't quite enough for GNG but it is a somewhat close case.It is also worth pointing out that there is one review for one of the books that the subject co-authored (review for Unscaled) and something that I thought was a review at first but is so short and un-review-like that it appears to be a news release for the other book (link for UnHealthcare). The actual review goes towards WP:NAUTHOR#3, but we would need to more published independent reviews to satisfy that criterion. — MarkH21talk 06:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per Scope creep's assessment above. Riteboke (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2021 (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.