- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Erin Smith (entrepreneur)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Erin Smith (entrepreneur) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable BLP. We have broad consensus that thiel fellows are not inherently notable based on WP:INHERIT and that Forbes "30 under 30" lists do not confer notability. Little is left. There are unresolved questions about notability on the talkpage, and WP:BIO notability criteria are not clearly met. WP:BEFORE yields no (or debatably very little) independent coverage of her at all. FalconK ( talk) 01:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FalconK ( talk) 01:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Illinois. Shellwood ( talk) 10:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - I agree it's an edge case and the article can def be improved, but for me these three give significant coverage in reliable sources:
Wired,
Startland,
Business Journal
Mujinga (
talk)
17:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- These sources rely heavily on interviews with the subject, which seems to work against them being the necessary independent coverage. FalconK ( talk) 22:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Weakkeep per WP:BASIC - the article would benefit from clean up and expansion based on available reliable sources, but in some sources with interview content, there is also secondary context and commentary that can support notability, and specifically the 2018 Startland and 2019 Wired articles noted above, as well as Erin Smith is Assembling the Next Generation of Female STEM Innovators (Seventeen, 2020). The bizjournals franchise markets itself as advertising so I do not think it contributes to notability. I also found at least more than a passing mention (a full preview is not available) in Stone, Zara (2020). The Future of Science Is Female: The Brilliant Minds Shaping the 21st Century. Mango Publishing. ISBN 9781642503203., and a brief mention in context in Silverstein, Natalie (2022). Simple Acts: The Busy Teen's Guide to Making a Difference. Free Spirit Publishing. p. 102. ISBN 9781631986284. She has also won a fair amount of notable fellowships and awards, which also seems to help support her notability generally. Beccaynr ( talk) 00:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)- Keep - Wired, Star, and Fox are solid sources. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! ( talk) 04:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I have updated my !vote after expanding the article and finding more sources, e.g.
Lenexa student catches attention of Michael J. Fox Foundation (Kansas City Star, 2016) (and more coverage in
2017).
Beccaynr (
talk)
04:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- The reason I am objecting to "entrepreneur" as the main descriptor for her current occupation is, to me that puts her in
WP:TOOSOON category, as she hasn't actually run a business yet. Whereas she already is an established inventor, exact patent status unclear, but winner of the
2022 Young Inventors Prize from the European Patent Office. The distinction to me is that important. There are also Wikipedia editors who will come through and change every occurrence of "entrepreneur" to "businessperson" anyway, and in a way that's even worse for this particular bio. There is no shame in being an inventor – and all the sources are pushing her as a role model for girls and women in STEM. It also doesn't preclude her being a successful entrepreneur in the future.
Cielquiparle (
talk)
07:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- We could talk about it more on the article Talk page - I added a source that was previously in the lead as support for the term. As to
WP:TOOSOON, there is
WP:SUSTAINED secondary coverage of her various accomplishments and the development of the FacePrint technology, as well as information about business development. Multiple independent and reliable sources over time report on her as a prodigy, with substantial progress towards developing a marketable product, which seems to support her notability as more than an inventor - she is really developing the product, not just the idea.
Beccaynr (
talk)
07:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Right, I wasn't trying to say she wasn't developing the product, or that she wasn't a budding entrepreneur. I don't see why it's such a problem to call her "an inventor and entrepreneur" in the lede, or to use the word "developer" alongside the word "founder". We delete BLPs every day about young and not-so-young entrepreneurs who have won prizes and funding and have lots of vanity coverage about them, so it just seems prudent to avoid putting all her eggs in the "entrepreneur" basket, when the coverage actually says she is more than just someone with an idea claiming to be an entrepreneur. Cielquiparle ( talk) 08:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- We could talk about it more on the article Talk page - I added a source that was previously in the lead as support for the term. As to
WP:TOOSOON, there is
WP:SUSTAINED secondary coverage of her various accomplishments and the development of the FacePrint technology, as well as information about business development. Multiple independent and reliable sources over time report on her as a prodigy, with substantial progress towards developing a marketable product, which seems to support her notability as more than an inventor - she is really developing the product, not just the idea.
Beccaynr (
talk)
07:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- The reason I am objecting to "entrepreneur" as the main descriptor for her current occupation is, to me that puts her in
WP:TOOSOON category, as she hasn't actually run a business yet. Whereas she already is an established inventor, exact patent status unclear, but winner of the
2022 Young Inventors Prize from the European Patent Office. The distinction to me is that important. There are also Wikipedia editors who will come through and change every occurrence of "entrepreneur" to "businessperson" anyway, and in a way that's even worse for this particular bio. There is no shame in being an inventor – and all the sources are pushing her as a role model for girls and women in STEM. It also doesn't preclude her being a successful entrepreneur in the future.
Cielquiparle (
talk)
07:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per notability established by many edits after the AfD was started. Good sourcing in reliable media. 多少 战场 龙 ( talk) 13:22, 1 December 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.
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Erin Smith (entrepreneur)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Erin Smith (entrepreneur) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable BLP. We have broad consensus that thiel fellows are not inherently notable based on WP:INHERIT and that Forbes "30 under 30" lists do not confer notability. Little is left. There are unresolved questions about notability on the talkpage, and WP:BIO notability criteria are not clearly met. WP:BEFORE yields no (or debatably very little) independent coverage of her at all. FalconK ( talk) 01:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FalconK ( talk) 01:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Illinois. Shellwood ( talk) 10:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - I agree it's an edge case and the article can def be improved, but for me these three give significant coverage in reliable sources:
Wired,
Startland,
Business Journal
Mujinga (
talk)
17:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- These sources rely heavily on interviews with the subject, which seems to work against them being the necessary independent coverage. FalconK ( talk) 22:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Weakkeep per WP:BASIC - the article would benefit from clean up and expansion based on available reliable sources, but in some sources with interview content, there is also secondary context and commentary that can support notability, and specifically the 2018 Startland and 2019 Wired articles noted above, as well as Erin Smith is Assembling the Next Generation of Female STEM Innovators (Seventeen, 2020). The bizjournals franchise markets itself as advertising so I do not think it contributes to notability. I also found at least more than a passing mention (a full preview is not available) in Stone, Zara (2020). The Future of Science Is Female: The Brilliant Minds Shaping the 21st Century. Mango Publishing. ISBN 9781642503203., and a brief mention in context in Silverstein, Natalie (2022). Simple Acts: The Busy Teen's Guide to Making a Difference. Free Spirit Publishing. p. 102. ISBN 9781631986284. She has also won a fair amount of notable fellowships and awards, which also seems to help support her notability generally. Beccaynr ( talk) 00:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)- Keep - Wired, Star, and Fox are solid sources. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! ( talk) 04:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I have updated my !vote after expanding the article and finding more sources, e.g.
Lenexa student catches attention of Michael J. Fox Foundation (Kansas City Star, 2016) (and more coverage in
2017).
Beccaynr (
talk)
04:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- The reason I am objecting to "entrepreneur" as the main descriptor for her current occupation is, to me that puts her in
WP:TOOSOON category, as she hasn't actually run a business yet. Whereas she already is an established inventor, exact patent status unclear, but winner of the
2022 Young Inventors Prize from the European Patent Office. The distinction to me is that important. There are also Wikipedia editors who will come through and change every occurrence of "entrepreneur" to "businessperson" anyway, and in a way that's even worse for this particular bio. There is no shame in being an inventor – and all the sources are pushing her as a role model for girls and women in STEM. It also doesn't preclude her being a successful entrepreneur in the future.
Cielquiparle (
talk)
07:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- We could talk about it more on the article Talk page - I added a source that was previously in the lead as support for the term. As to
WP:TOOSOON, there is
WP:SUSTAINED secondary coverage of her various accomplishments and the development of the FacePrint technology, as well as information about business development. Multiple independent and reliable sources over time report on her as a prodigy, with substantial progress towards developing a marketable product, which seems to support her notability as more than an inventor - she is really developing the product, not just the idea.
Beccaynr (
talk)
07:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Right, I wasn't trying to say she wasn't developing the product, or that she wasn't a budding entrepreneur. I don't see why it's such a problem to call her "an inventor and entrepreneur" in the lede, or to use the word "developer" alongside the word "founder". We delete BLPs every day about young and not-so-young entrepreneurs who have won prizes and funding and have lots of vanity coverage about them, so it just seems prudent to avoid putting all her eggs in the "entrepreneur" basket, when the coverage actually says she is more than just someone with an idea claiming to be an entrepreneur. Cielquiparle ( talk) 08:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- We could talk about it more on the article Talk page - I added a source that was previously in the lead as support for the term. As to
WP:TOOSOON, there is
WP:SUSTAINED secondary coverage of her various accomplishments and the development of the FacePrint technology, as well as information about business development. Multiple independent and reliable sources over time report on her as a prodigy, with substantial progress towards developing a marketable product, which seems to support her notability as more than an inventor - she is really developing the product, not just the idea.
Beccaynr (
talk)
07:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- The reason I am objecting to "entrepreneur" as the main descriptor for her current occupation is, to me that puts her in
WP:TOOSOON category, as she hasn't actually run a business yet. Whereas she already is an established inventor, exact patent status unclear, but winner of the
2022 Young Inventors Prize from the European Patent Office. The distinction to me is that important. There are also Wikipedia editors who will come through and change every occurrence of "entrepreneur" to "businessperson" anyway, and in a way that's even worse for this particular bio. There is no shame in being an inventor – and all the sources are pushing her as a role model for girls and women in STEM. It also doesn't preclude her being a successful entrepreneur in the future.
Cielquiparle (
talk)
07:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per notability established by many edits after the AfD was started. Good sourcing in reliable media. 多少 战场 龙 ( talk) 13:22, 1 December 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.