- 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 delete. The consensus is that the subject is not independently notable, with the article veering towards promotion PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 06:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Michael Joseph Baum
- Michael Joseph Baum ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
not notable independently of Splunk for which we already have an article. The sources given are mostly about Splunk and not Baum. The article was repeatedly rejected at Articles for creation until the author unilaterally moved it into main space. noq ( talk) 14:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC) See history of original AFC article here. noq ( talk) 14:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually if you do read through the Articles for Creation process dialog that took place, the author responded to all the feedback that was given and made repeated changes. I'd say this is an example where the process didn't work so well. The last several rounds of feedback were repeating previous rounds and really didn't even make sense. The author asked for additional feedback or posting of the article and nobody ever responded. Also there is significant notability here beyond the one subject, Splunk, that you mention. I cannot find articles about FOUNDER.org or the other companies which the subject of the article was involved in creating. Snnuggles ( talk) 10:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Snnuggles. There are a number of topics here about Baum's involvement in the startup, tech, big data scenes that have nothing to do with Splunk. I've just counted and 14 of the 26 references are about other topics other than Splunk that the subject of the article has been involved with including Founder.org, Collation, Rembrandt Ventures, DotBank, Yahoo and number of Patents where Baum is the primary inventor. I'm finding with lots of things wikipedia, we all need to sometimes, read a bit deeper. Arootoo ( talk) 18:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- with due respect to the single purpose editors above, the references that are not about Splunk are the patent applications - not significant, directory entries - not significant, or alumni blogs - not significant. noq ( talk) 23:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Added four more references, three on student entrepreneurs winning FOUNDER.org $100K grants and one on Baum's recent venture capital investment. Still contend that this article contains many solid notable references on the subject matter. "Granted Patent" references, not merely "Patent Applications" are very notable and significant, considering the topics at hand of innovation and entrepreneurship. The US PTO takes 5-7 years to vet patent applications and grant broad reaching patents like the three Baum is credited with. Hummphry ( talk) 05:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Added a few more references on Big Data investing and FOUNDER.org investing in student startups. Hummphry ( talk) 14:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Even though heavily referenced, this just stinks of self-promotion. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 13:57, 24 October 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.
- 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 delete. The consensus is that the subject is not independently notable, with the article veering towards promotion PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 06:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Michael Joseph Baum
- Michael Joseph Baum ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
not notable independently of Splunk for which we already have an article. The sources given are mostly about Splunk and not Baum. The article was repeatedly rejected at Articles for creation until the author unilaterally moved it into main space. noq ( talk) 14:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC) See history of original AFC article here. noq ( talk) 14:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually if you do read through the Articles for Creation process dialog that took place, the author responded to all the feedback that was given and made repeated changes. I'd say this is an example where the process didn't work so well. The last several rounds of feedback were repeating previous rounds and really didn't even make sense. The author asked for additional feedback or posting of the article and nobody ever responded. Also there is significant notability here beyond the one subject, Splunk, that you mention. I cannot find articles about FOUNDER.org or the other companies which the subject of the article was involved in creating. Snnuggles ( talk) 10:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Snnuggles. There are a number of topics here about Baum's involvement in the startup, tech, big data scenes that have nothing to do with Splunk. I've just counted and 14 of the 26 references are about other topics other than Splunk that the subject of the article has been involved with including Founder.org, Collation, Rembrandt Ventures, DotBank, Yahoo and number of Patents where Baum is the primary inventor. I'm finding with lots of things wikipedia, we all need to sometimes, read a bit deeper. Arootoo ( talk) 18:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- with due respect to the single purpose editors above, the references that are not about Splunk are the patent applications - not significant, directory entries - not significant, or alumni blogs - not significant. noq ( talk) 23:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Added four more references, three on student entrepreneurs winning FOUNDER.org $100K grants and one on Baum's recent venture capital investment. Still contend that this article contains many solid notable references on the subject matter. "Granted Patent" references, not merely "Patent Applications" are very notable and significant, considering the topics at hand of innovation and entrepreneurship. The US PTO takes 5-7 years to vet patent applications and grant broad reaching patents like the three Baum is credited with. Hummphry ( talk) 05:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Added a few more references on Big Data investing and FOUNDER.org investing in student startups. Hummphry ( talk) 14:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Even though heavily referenced, this just stinks of self-promotion. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 13:57, 24 October 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.