Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Bodnick


 * 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. There is some successful rebuttal of the sources given by the nominator but there is no other arguments for deletion, and the GNG part seems like a no consensus for that thus keep. Secret account 03:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Marc Bodnick

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete: This article meets the criteria for neither Notability nor Notability (people).

Transcendence (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * From Notability, there isn't Significant Coverage of this person in the media. While there are news articles about him, many of them are primarily about the companies he is involved with and not actually about him.
 * From Notability (people), this person satisfies neither The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. nor The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field..
 * One of the things included in this article is that Marc Bodnick is the brother in law of Sheryl Sandberg. From Notability (people), Relationships do not confer notability..
 * One point the creator of the article bring up in defense of this article ([]) is "For goodness sake he's got 38 mentions major and minor (per my google search) in the New York Times[1], four in the Wall Street Journal, etc." While this is true, Notability (people) says that search engine statistics are invalid criteria for notable. Furthermore, as noted above, many of the articles are actually not focus on him but on the companies he works with.
 * Of the things that he is supposedly notable for, it is co-founding Elevation Partners. This would be better off with a redirect to that page at the very least. The rest of his accomplishments listed in the article do not seem significant. This includes: working at Blackstone, leading investment rounds at Facebook and Yelp, and becoming an executive at Quora. These are not accomplishments that are an enduring part of the VC industry or something that historians will record, they're facts about his life that, on their own or all together, do not become notable enough within the context of Notability or Notability (people).
 * Keep Significant coverage in Reuters, Fortune and the San Jose Mercury News. Disclosure: I sometimes write for Quora, and Bodnick is an investor in that company.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there? Most of the articles I've found are not focused on him but the companies he is involved with. In cases such as that, he should be mentioned on the company's page rather than having a stand-alone article.Transcendence (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The first six articles in the Google News Archives (linked above) mention him by name in the headline. That sort of significant coverage makes him worthy of a stand-alone article, in my opinion.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition, a Google Books search shows much discussion of his earlier work as a political scientist analyzing Reagan administration tax policy.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see one page or even one line mentions of him along with other people. I wouldn't call that significant either. https://www.google.com/search?q=marc+bodnick&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=%22marc+bodnick%22&hl=en&tbm=bks&fp=ec19cd75ded89684 Transcendence (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any link. In any case I just did a google news search. The articles I see mention him in the headline, but when I click on those links, he's not the main focus of the article. He's more of a mention. As such, I don't think it's right to use that justification for a stand-alone article. Transcendence (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - as article creator this is pretty much WP:SNOW. He's a prominent venture capitalist. Leading the final venture capital rounds of Yelp and Facebook before they went public is a big deal. A comprehensive understanding of the VC industry would not be complete without mentioning him (which is why I started the article, to fill a gap in Wikipedia coverage). Because he did a number of notable things with different companies throughout his career, spreading that information across multiple articles would be a poor way of organizing things, making it hard for the article's 300-500 interested monthly readers to learn about him. The many major mentions entirely devoted to him and his career in major news sources and industry trade publications easily pass the criteria for general notability. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I object to this being under WP:SNOW. Your claim that a comprehensive understanding of the VC industry cannot be complete without this article is a complete exaggeration. He is not integral to the VC industry nor has he done anything monumental. If he did, why isn't it in the article? Founding a few companies and leading investment rounds in the context of the VC industry is not a major event. It happens quite frequently. You can't say that, in and of itself, is a reason for notability since the very purpose of the notability policies is to raise the bar for what gets into Wikipedia. If that is all he's notable for, then this really should be a redirect into the relevant articles.
 * You keep claiming that there are many major articles devoted entirely to him. Where are they? There are only two in the article and one of them is about him joining Quora, which is not significant or notable in terms of Notability nor Notability (people) (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/29/idUS115620791220110129) and the other (http://www.businessinsider.com/marc-bodnick-quora-2011-1) named four points, 1 is that his sister-in-law is the COO of Facebook which isn't a valid notable point, 2 is him saying Quora is the new TechCrunch, also not notable, 3, he has a long career, also not notable and 4, his investments in Facebook and Yelp, while laudable is not a major event in the VC industry. I have looked for such articles and have found none. You keep saying they exist, where are they? Transcendence (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Google is your friend. As are logic and reading comprehension. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can do without the ad hominem attacks, thank you. I also have used Google and literally haven't found anything major as you have claimed and I'm pretty sure other people, provided they delved deeper past the headline of the article, won't find much either. Transcendence (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you were misstating my arguments to try to make me look bad and I couldn't resist such an easy target. 38 New York Times references is a big deal, not because that is a google statistic (which would indeed be an invalid argument) but because there are a whole bunch of individual articles from NYT alone that you can find with google and should take a look at before declaring that you can't find any significant coverage. Indeed, of the eight sources currently in the article five are entirely about either: (1) him, or (2) a specific aspect or event in his career. That is significant coverage, even if all but one (in the Mercury News) are industry trade publications you deem to be less than stellar journalists. My statement about completeness is that a comprehensive understanding of VC would not be complete without including him, not that he is "integral to the VC industry". Those are two different things. We aim for comprehensive coverage, not hitting the highlights. Hence we have articles on In-N-Out Burger and White Castle, not just McDonald's and Burger King. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll thank you I ask you not to assume I was trying to make you look bad WP:AGF and again to refrain from making personal attacks by calling me an easy target WP:PERSONAL. I still assert that he isn't such a significant player in the VC industry such that "understanding of VC would not be complete without including him". As I keep stating, those articles are not primarily about him, they reference him. It isn't significant coverage about 'him', rather the companies he is involved with. In fact, I just did a google search (site:nytimes.com "marc bodnick") and there are only 14 articles. The first page says "about 33" hits but when you go to the second page, there really are only 14 (the rest are duplicates and are hidden) and none of them are about him, they're about the companies. In most of the articles, they're just quoting him exactly once. There's only one article where he's even mentioned more than once (it's two times). Some of them are just listing a lot of people and he's included, and one of them is him posting a comment. This goes back to my point that on the surface it seems like he has significant coverage, but there really isn't. Transcendence (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No thanks are necessary but please, no flopping. The Times quotes him saying things, other sources profile him, yet others cover his career. I think you and I have had our say by this point. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop making snide remarks. I am not flopping, rather you are being quite uncivil by repeatedly making personal statements against me rather than my arguments. Transcendence (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition, I count 3 articles that focus on him or his career. (I'm not sure which other two you are referring to.)
 * http://www.businessinsider.com/marc-bodnick-quora-2011-1
 * http://venturebeat.com/2011/01/25/marc-bodnick-leaving-elevation-partners/
 * http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/29/idUS115620791220110129 - This one really shouldn't count since it's not even a journalistic article, it's just copy and paste from Quora Transcendence (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, subject of AfD has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, therefore subject is notable per WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As defined by significant coverage, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. As I've stated above, the coverage is superficial and do not address the subject in detail. Could point out any examples otherwise?. Transcendence (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

 Cameron11598  (Converse) 18:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Was added twice my apologies  Cameron11598  (Converse) 18:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - There's seems to be plenty of coverage in independent reliable sources. Without much effort expended, there is, , , and .  -- Whpq (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2013 (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.