Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nate Cardozo


 * 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. Star  Mississippi  17:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Nate Cardozo

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Entire article consists of the fact that he worked at two organizations (EFF and Facebook) and that he likes brewing beer. This is the definition of an article of minor significance. I have tried searching for additional sources or accomplishments of the subject and have been unable to do so. Does not meet notability. WP:NOR WP:N Yipee8f93k (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Bobherry  Talk   Edits  03:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yipee8f93k (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep – the article as written isn't too impressive, but there are quite a few sources about Cardozo's move to Facebook: (characterizing him as "prominent"),,, and others. None of those are perfect sources, but they're arguably enough to establish notability, particularly since he's frequently cited in the press and in books. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove – Crucially, all the sources about Cardozo's move to Facebook are about the unique choice Facebook itself made hiring a critic, not about anything that makes the subject himself any more notable than any other public policy critic of one of the largest companies in the world. See: (noting "Cardozo has written acerbically" about Facebook and failing to describe any other notable accomplishments) (noting "Cardozo once wrote in an op-ed" and failing to describe any other accomplishments), (noting Cardozo "certainly hasn’t minced words about his new employer" and failing to mention any other specific accomplishments,  (noting one accomplishment as "For years he worked on EFF's annual report ranking tech companies" but failing to describe his particular role or level of involvement or importance). These citations, and a few mentions of the substance of his criticisms in other publications, fail to meet the notability requirement that the subject receive "significant coverage" per WP:BIO . No sources indicate nomination or receipt of a significant award or honor; no sources indicate "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field"; and subject is not an entry in a national biographical dictionary. The article would thus appear not to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Cheers   Yipee8f93k (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. The references are enough to show the importance, and the article could be expanded to show the context. The sentence about his hobby should of course be removed as non-encyclopedic, but that's no reason for deletion of the article  DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage in Wired, Ars Technica, and AdWeek is easily enough to demonstrate notability under the usual standards. The above attempted minimization of these sources is not convincing. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 16:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, per DGG's rationale. The content is remarkably skimpy but the references are enough to meet notability guidelines. I am ambivalent about the beer hobby except I note it was a prominently discussed quality of a recent US Supreme Court appointee. Ifnord (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2022 (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.