Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Hirschtick


 * 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.  Sandstein  13:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Jon Hirschtick

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Simply nothing for actual independent notability and substance and it's enough to suggest paid advertising for this article, the company positions and achievements are not convincing as to automatically inherit him notability, the sources are not equally convincing either, thus this should not have been accepted at all. There is nothing that can suggest otherwise if we consider policies WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. SwisterTwister  talk  17:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, I feel he's notable enough, because he is a leading innovator in CAD software development (he created two great CAD systems), he awarded the prestigious CAD Society Leadership Award (as Autodesk’s Carl Bass, Dassault Systèmes’ Bernard Charles, and 3D Systems's Ping Fu), and ASME Leadership Award, also it is written about him in books (1, 2, 3, and one more translated to Japanese 4) and big journals (like Fortune and Wall Street Journal), there are movies about him ([5], [6]), and there are many pages link to this one ([7]). I am going to add more information about his achievements to improve the article. Ilya.lichman (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Every single one of those sources are not inheriting automatic notability for an article from anything or anyone else, especially if they simply consist of actual interviews, company quotes, republished company or businesspeople information, or that it was by a hired freelance journalist instead of staff (this is a case specifically for Forbes, which is notorious for it); also, there's policies in place for articles such as these, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. SwisterTwister   talk  07:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for this clarification, and thank you for your time! Am I right that books containing chapters about Hirschtick is a sign of his notability? For instance, in the books "Entrepreneurship: Successfully Launching New Ventures" and "The Portable MBA in Entrepreneurship Case Studies" there are chapters about him. Ilya.lichman (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – An article from Design & Motion (April 2015) refers to Jon Hirschtick as "CAD royalty", in the setting of a Develop3D LIVE conference where he co-presented with Carl Bass of Autodesk, who has a Wikipedia entry. See: https://designandmotion.net/news/jon-hirschtick-loses-onshape-to-carl-bass/ Skydog10291971 (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Being "royalty" is by all means vague and is not an instant inheritable for notability here, especially when policy is involved. This comment above has no policy-based comment, unlike WP:NOT which is. SwisterTwister   talk  04:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  → Call me  Razr   Nation  06:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment There is an article about Hirschtick in the Wall Street Journal - In Cards or Business, Act on the Advantage. In the article Hirsctick said, how he learned about card counting while a student at MIT, and also he described the business lessons he drew from his time playing cards. May be blackjack is not serious enough topic, but it seems that an article in Wall Street Journal about Jon Hirschtick is serious enough sign of his notability. Ilya.lichman (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep For the reasons other Keepers have noted. I am surprised it is even an issue. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How is this a policy-based comment? See WP:PERX. SwisterTwister   talk  04:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 01:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More comments needed please. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the claim of notability is quite strong as creator of two CAD software breakthroughs, funded by the $1 million he made as part of the MIT blackjack team, all backed up by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 03:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's not automatic inherited notability from the fact he founded software, we could then accept any other article with the sole basis of "he founded multiple sofwares" but our policies explicit state against this, and with good meaning. Also, the fact he was funded by an MIT team is also not automatically inheriting him notability. Unlike anyone else, I would actually say we have paid advertising contributions here because of the fact of not one SPA, but two now by the fact a second user has now started, and we've established as it is this can only mean advertising-involved, certainly not "coincidentally active users with the same one article". Simply look at each source, it's about the software itself (Fortune: Funding support, WSJ: Mere mention, Forbes: By a "special contributing journalist" (which basically means he was a freelance journalist, a job that is easily bought by companies for PR). When an article then has to end with simple sourcing (see #15-28) as mentions, it shows the sheer attempts at coatracking and overbloating the article with anything to make it seem "genuinely substantial", when it's not, and policies explicitly state this. When we ignore policies against advertising, we have no hopes for an encyclopedia.  SwisterTwister   talk  04:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hirschtick didn't "inherit" anything from the software he created; he is notable because he created the software, as he is for his involvement in the MIT blackjack team. That one funded the creation of the other only adds to the claim. When we have single editors turning themselves into judge, jury and executioner, shouting and screaming increasingly bizarre and irrational conspiracy theories to claim that any and all sources are "advertising", regardless of the source, we have no hopes for an encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear SwisterTwister, thank you for the explanation "but two now by the fact a second user has now started, and we've established as it is this can only mean advertising-involved, certainly not "coincidentally active users with the same one article""! Now I can understand better how it looks from you point of view. I hope it will be pertinently if I try to explain. I am a programmer in CAD/CAM company, and also I am a lecturer in a university ("Introduction to CAD/CAM/CAE" for students of 5th grade). Half of a year ago I found that there are no any articles in Wikipedia about new system Onshape and about Jon Hirschtick who created Solidworks and Onshape. I was very surprised, so I decided to create both these articles. One month ago I found that the first article was created, and that it was temporary in the list of Articles for deletion. So I started creation of the second one article via Articles for creation (to avoid mistakes of beginners). It was accepted, and two hours later you put it into the list of Articles for deletion. I absolutely agree with you that my text is not perfect, that sources must be improved. And now I can see why do you think that my article looks like a spam. But on my talk page you can see that I asked the author of the Onshape article to share his expirience about all these deletion things. And it seems that only after it he decided to rewrite part of my text. I hate spam too. But I am interesed in CAD/CAM/CAE/PLM, so I am trying to improve Wikipedia in these areas. Ilya.lichman (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2016 (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.