Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Landolina


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Joe Landolina

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of nobility, created one product via a college start-up, limited coverage (some of which is coverage from his school), one time TED speaker. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 18:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * KEEP - The simple fact that this person has accomplished so much as such a young age demonstrates their Notability. But the achievements and coverage is enough to justify keeping this article to me. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. It feels a little WP:BLP1E to me, since the coverage mostly focuses on the product Vetigel, but other details like the Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship and that he was asked to give a TED Talk (that has received  independent coverage) pushes me pretty squarely into keep territory.  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 19:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment User:Mrfrobinson has nominated 14 articles for deletion in 2014. Out of those nominations 50% were articles that I started. See also my comments in an earlier afd  Ottawahitech (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - the scholarship may look impressive, but it's awarded to 300 college sophomores and juniors nationwide. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * KEEP - This person has started a company (which now has 15 employees and has significant coverage), has given three TED talks  which have independent coverage citing him as an expert in his field , and is working on new products as well. For me, this all points to notability. -- Freemanscott1123 (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I feel that this article is premature; Mr Landolina's accomplishment is certainly impressive, but I don't think there's quite enough coverage yet to reach notability criteria. If he continues along these lines, then there certainly will be in future, but not every spark of potential leads to a thriving flame. Delete with no prejudice against recreation should coverage warrant. DS (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You say there's not quite enough coverage, so I would like to pose a question. Since Mr. Landolina has been featured in many publications and on TV both in Europe and the United States (see list below) starting as early as 2013, I wonder what it will take to make him notable enough for Wikipedia?
 * USAtoday
 * New York Post
 * Medical Daily
 * NYnews
 * Smithsonian
 * Times Herald-Record
 * NYU Alumni Magazine
 * TED
 * dailymail
 * CNBC
 * Fox Business Network  Ottawahitech (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Product, not person An article on the product is probably more appropriate than one on the person - after all, what he is known for is what he invented, not for being himself (e.g. rock star). The references here are primarily about the product, which is what he is known for, so this article could be re-written to emphasize the product with some information about him. If other products are developed and if he continues to be news, then a separate article on him may be warranted. But it makes no sense to me to put him in WP before his product. (P.S. There is an single purpose account in the history, which is often the case with biographies of living persons I don't think it's dishonest, just an amount of personal enthusiasm). LaMona (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There is pretty extensive coverage of his gel, e.g.,, , , and . Inventions and research aren't events, they are processes that occur over time, so I don't see WP:BLP1E as applying, but even if it did, this appears to be an important discovery. It also looks like his notability, in part, derives from his accomplishments as such a young age. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  01:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ambivalent keep I initially agreed with you, DS, that this seems like a lot of hype over nothing, but it does seem to have gotten a lot of coverage in the lay press. Also seems like this discussion is more related to wp:companies than to wp:med, so i defer to them. BakerStMD  T&#124;C 21:13, 17 January 2015 (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.