Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basem Al-Shayeb - Wikipedia


Article Images
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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basem Al-Shayeb (edit | 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)

I believe that the above article is a blatant example of self-promotion, and does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for articles about people. The article heavily references the accolades and accomplishments of this person, seemingly for no other reason than to make them sound impressive, but their listed accomplishments and scientific contributions, though interesting on their own merits, are frankly not very noteworthy against the backdrop of the molecular biology field. They obtained a PhD from UC Berkeley, got their dissertation work published in some high-profile journals, and co-founded a startup- so what? This is not a singular accomplishment; this person did not discover anything that significantly advanced the field, and to the extent that they did, they did not do so alone. There are many other individuals like them out there for which we do not - and should not - have articles.

Furthermore, the article shows every sign of having been written by either the subject themself or someone close to them, with the intent of misrepresenting their accomplishments for self-aggrandizing purposes; to wit:

1. The article as originally written named the subject as the founder of the listed company; they were a co-founder.

2. The article as originally written stated that the subject "led the discovery of" the various listed topics; they were co-first author on two of the papers and a first author on one, and moreover all of this work was evidently done during their PhD, meaning that their graduate advisor technically "led" the work in question.

3. Following my attempts to correct these misstatements, at least two single-purpose accounts were created which proceeded to revert these changes and call into question my motives in editing. I have little doubt one or both of these accounts belongs to the subject of the article.

I am aware that my actions here may be interpreted as implying some ulterior motive, but I assure you I have none: I simply do not look favorably upon people who abuse Wikipedia for self-aggrandizement and self-promotion, especially (as in this case) while being verifiably dishonest, and I am acting accordingly. Xardwen (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Wiki analytics indicate that the page has been visited 7130 times, with 13 average visits per day this year. There is significant coverage in reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject. This suggests some noteworthiness, even if you personally think it undeserved. A quick search also yields further attributions that are not present in the article, including references in two 2024 books: Superconvergence How the Genetics, Biotech, and AI Revolutions Will Transform Our Lives, Work, and World By Jamie Metzl, and The Nobel Prizes 2020 By Karl Grandin.
It appears that the original edits that you mentioned, Xardwen, had deleted relevant news sources. They also included unsourced information, a copyrighted photo and a LinkedIn profile which are all against WP and the edits were addressed by seasoned wikipedians accordingly. It is inappropriate to insert unsourced personal opinions or skepticisms into an article. Your statements also seem to repeatedly violate both WP:AFG Assume Good Faith and WP:PA No Personal Attacks principles with potentially libelous phrases against a public figure?
Considering your edit warring and your statement of being in the same field and in the same city as the subject, can you explain what precisely is your role or personal and financial relation to the subject for COI purposes? You mentioned strong opinions on biographies, but you have not edited any other biography apart this one. In fact, aside pages on erectile dysfunction, this is the top page you have edited. I have no tie to this topic but I hold strongly that Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia, not a weapon to undermine persons, nor to push a particular view or to serve a personal vendetta. Pantrail (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your semantic first author comment, you are enforcing a biased personal opinion in contradiction with referenced sources, which state a leading role. A first author in biological sciences is typically the person who led the work on a day-to-day basis and is considered to have made the most substantial contributions to the overall research. In cases of co-first authorship, all co-first authors are considered to have "led" the work. Your edit was inaccurate because you removed this detail in your stated effort to undermine the subject Pantrail (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to preface the following by saying again that I would very much like a senior editor to weigh in on this matter; I believe an experienced and impartial voice is sorely needed here. That being said:
The Wikipedia guidelines on notability state the basic criteria as follows: people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
The secondary sources cited in the article are as follows: The Independent, GEN - Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News, Chemical Engineering News, CRISPR Medicine, Forbes, Arab America, ScienceAlert, IFLScience, SYFY Official Site, TechCrunch, Berkeley News, The Daily Californian, and the Innovative Genomics Institute website (apologies if I have missed any sources). Of these, I would say that only the first four qualify as reliable and intellectually independent of one another and the subject; the subject was listed in Forbes and Arab America's "30 under 30" lists and thus calling these sources "independent" is questionable, and the last three listed sources are affiliated with the institution where the subject did their doctoral research. ScienceAlert is described as controversial and sensationalistic in its Wikipedia article; IFLScience is described as similarly unreliable in the article on its founder; TechCrunch seems fairly reliable based on this analysis by Ad Fontes Media; SYFY is an entertainment company and should not be regarded as reliable when it comes to science reporting, though the subject's mention by them does speak to the extent of their publicity. Indeed, if their work had not been (rather sensationalistically, in some cases) reported by multiple media outlets, and were I not also a researcher in the subject's field, then I would never have heard of them to begin with. I assure you that were I to learn of another researcher in my field with a Wikipedia page that I felt was unwarranted, I would respond exactly as I have here; this was simply the first such example I have come across.
I would like to briefly interject here that I have never stated that I live in the same city as the subject. I am not sure how this misconception arose. I also do not believe that I am obligated to reveal any information about myself beyond what I already have, and I will decline to do so if asked. I have said previously that I have no personal or financial relation to the subject, and that is all I have to say on the matter.
Regarding my other interests as indicated by my edit history, I do not see how this is relevant, but I appreciate you taking the time to look through my prior contributions - I hope that you found them interesting and informative. I cannot help but notice, however, that you have engaged with exactly no articles aside from the one under discussion, and that your account did not exist prior to last month. The same is true for Xerxescience, who has behaved in a more-or-less identical manner. I find this to be extremely suspect.
Regarding your statements about co-first authorship: yes, it is true that co-first authors on a scientific publication are both regarded as having "led" the work described, but regardless, I think it is unfair and misleading not to explicitly give both individuals equal credit in an article that describes their work. Likewise regarding being a co-founder of a company- yes, a co-founder is obviously considered a founder, but listing them simply as "founder" gives an inaccurate impression of their role in the company's history- and, not incidentally, makes the referenced individual sound more impressive, which seems to be a throughline of almost every aspect of this article as it was initially written.
To the extent that my actions have violated Wikipedia's rules: granted, and I aim to do better to avoid running afoul of them in future. I believe that my criticisms and concerns are valid even if I have crossed some lines, or had a bit too much fun at Mr. Al-Shayeb's expense. As I've said above, I would much prefer if someone else was doing this work instead of me- and yet here we are. Xardwen (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to weigh in as an independent observer, as the flag to remove this article caught my eye. I think this article inflates the significance of its subject. There are thousands of people who recently graduated with PhDs from top universities with papers in top journals each year, yet most of these people do not have Wikipedia articles written about themselves. The wording of the first paragraph reads as an advertisement for Amber Bio. The second included information about the individual being a peer reviewer, which is a non-noteworthy duty that nearly every academic scientist fulfills.The studies called out in the third paragraph were made possible only through the hard work of a large team of fellow students, postdocs, and even Prof. Banfield herself. Given the other co-authors' (including Prof. Banfield's) documented roles in the work, I think the term "led" to describe this individual's involvement is disingenuous. Additionally, there are 600 people located in North America who are added to the Forbes "30 Under 30" list annually (30 people across 20 industries); I think Wikipedia call-outs of achievements should be saved for actually meaningful and highly selective awards. I respectfully disagree that the subject of this article represents a "public figure."
I call on Wikipedia leadership to investigate whether the multiple accounts that created and have been editing this article in a disingenuous/advertising way represent "sock puppets" of the same person. If proven to trace back to the same person, then every indicted account should be banned for violating Wikipedia's policies. I think it is in the best interest of the Wikipedia community to stop self promotion and industrial advertisement on its platform. Hemelina (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has become quite ridiculous. The content of the page cannot be based on subjective opinion of a user, or terminology they think should be used, but rather the information in the sources. Xardwen has now added the same unsourced information and libelous material multiple times, and subjective synthesis of information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and not your blog. Sources cannot be removed based on your subjective opinion of whether information is important, or how "scientific" a source is, or your biased opinion on noteworthiness of the subject's work. And I say it is biased because Xardwen has already engaged in forum shopping and has accused me of COI, and was thusly already resolved by administrators for being baseless. Meanwhile, he states he in the subject's "field" and the address associated with his account links to the San Francisco metropolitan area, in particular Berkeley. It is abundantly clear that he is somehow linked to the subject and has been obsessively editing the page to harass and malign them, which he has expressed himself "with savage delight". Hemelina is also a brand new account that is likely Xardwen's sockpuppet to further target this page, having just been created to install the same baseless claims and remove information. Xerxescience (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well. Whoopsies. Regardless, I have no personal or financial connection to the subject, though I don't expect anyone to believe me. I have no idea who User:Hemelina is, either. I have opened a "Request for Comment" on the article's Talk page; I hope that this matter will shortly be moved into the hands of more experienced editors.Xardwen (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xardwen you have yet again inserted original synthesis of your own subjective opinions into the page, replacing the language that was presented in the source articles, and violating Wikipedia:No original research after multiple warnings. I will also note the interesting presentation of the same typos as User:Hemelina. Xerxescience (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. I'm not sure how to say this politely, but Wikipedia doesn't care about your personal opinion of an article subject and whether or not you believe they "deserve" an article on this project. None of your opinions are based in Wikipedia policy which, along with consensus, is how AFD discussions are closed. In this case, the standards for notability is WP:NACADEMIC and comments should be made in reference to whether or not this subject can be considered notable by this standard or, less likely, WP:GNG. Notability isn't determined based on editors' opinion, much less accusations against your fellow editors, but based on reliable, independent, secondary sources that provide SIGCOV. Some analysis of sources was done here and I thank you for that start. Those who disagree with the nominator's proposal would spend their time more productively by addressing their evaluation of sources or by finding better ones. It is also clear that none of you have participated in an AFD discussion because it helps the closer if you, except for the nominator, cast a bolded "vote" like Keep or Delete or Redirect. Assessing consensus isn't a vote count but some times when editors post long comments, like in this AFD, a bolded vote makes it obvious what outcome you want to happen. Here's hoping we get some participation from AFD regulars who could also offer a source assessment. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article text demonstrates that the subject's research has had a significant impact in his scholarly discipline and beyond.
  • Referenced articles state Al-Shayeb's role in having "led" / "helmed" (100+ year old magazine by the American Chemical Society) multiple major publications that have each received significant coverage, and cited by multiple reputable perspective pieces as having major impact or "shift our understanding" of how we think about viruses and other elements https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02975-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-020-0341-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-021-00574-z These discoveries are influential in the fields of microbiology and gene editing, as independently outlined by multiple different editors in the 2021 in science and 2022 in science pages, which highlighted major discoveries of the year. Several of these discoveries also have their own separate Wiki pages. Considering the Wiki reference search shows 3,090 results, and over 100 different news articles, I addressed only some concerns mentioned.
  • As referred to above by @Pantrail, Al-shayeb's work on new CRISPR tools is discussed as the cutting edge of genetic engineering technology in the 2020 Nobel Prize lecture with Al-Shayeb credited by name, and in the 2024 book Superconvergence How the Genetics, Biotech, and AI Revolutions Will Transform Our Lives, Work, and World By Jamie Metzl. To say "this person did not discover anything that significantly advanced the field, and to the extent that they did, they did not do so alone" is a fallacious and subjective view of science. By that standard, nobody qualifies since nobody does science alone. The article and sources state that he led the work, not that he or any scientist did it alone.
  • Prestigious journals like the Nature Portfolio are known for their rigorous standards, only accepting "ground-breaking" research. These journals presumably similarly carefully select reviewers who are leading experts, and reviewing for said journals is a testament to the subject's significant authority and extensive record of impactful research in their discipline.
The person has also had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
  • The published work is in development by major companies demonstrating real-world impact beyond academia. The work on RNA-guided therapies highlights how the research has translated directly into medical innovation by multiple pharmaceutical companies. Recognition from mainstream sources like Forbes Magazine (from which there are at least 5 different articles on subject) and other outlets also indicates broad public and professional acknowledgment of his influence beyond the academic realm. This shows substantial impact in both the academic sphere and the wider industry. The nominator claimed Al-Shayeb has affiliation with the editorial board of Forbes Magazine or the Daily Californian multiple times now and suggested that it diminishes their credibility, but provided no evidence, or that this presumed affiliation led to the coverage. He also conveniently dismissed the outlets or sources curated by industry experts such as GEN, c&en, CRISPR Medicine, Nature Magazine News, Science Magazine News, Futurism (credibility), LiveScience (rated GREEN for its credibility and trustworthiness by NewsGuard) or the work in TechCrunch, The Independent that corroborate the same reporting that the nominator claimed to be "non-credible or sensationalistic"
Xerxescience (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to "vote" or not, but I didn't see anything on the AfD guidelines page prohibiting me from doing so, thus:
Delete -
Wikipedia's criteria for notability regarding articles about academics are listed as follows:
  1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
First of all, "significant impact" seems highly subjective, but that aside: what counts as a "significant impact" here, and does this person's research qualify? They were first author on a paper describing unusual archaeal extrachromosomal DNA elements; this is interesting, but speaking as a fellow microbiologist, it does not strike me as a very impactful discovery, but more of a niche curiosity. Another listed publication (I thought they were listed as co-first author, but I seem to have been mistaken? Need to double-check) describes some very small virus-derived CRISPR-associated genome-editing proteins; again, this is interesting, but did this really leave a lasting impression on the field? The CRISPR field seems to move quite fast, and my understanding is that other, smaller gene-editing proteins (e.g. TnpB) have been discovered since; moreover it's not clear to me that the proteins discovered by Al-Shayeb et al. were that transformative in terms of their applications, although this may just be my ignorance showing. Finally, the third paper listed (on which Al-Shayeb was co-first author) describes some of the largest known phages at the time; again, interesting, but is this really an impactful find? Was this a major addition to our understanding of microbiology, or is it just a neat addition to the list of already known large phages?
  1. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
Has this person received a highly prestigious academic award at a national or international level? According to the article, they were nominated for the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship; the NSF website states that they plan to issue 2,300 GRFs this fiscal year. Does this qualify as a "prestigious award at a national level"? "Prestigious" is obviously subjective, but I was under the impression that this referred to something closer to the level of, say, the Pulitzer Prize for journalism, of which twenty-four are issued each year. As for their other listed accolades, being on the Forbes/Arab America 30 Under 30 lists does not constitute an academic award, and thus does not apply here.
  1. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics).
I do not believe any of these apply here.
  1. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
I do not believe this applies here.
  1. The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
Does not apply here.
  1. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
Does not apply here.
  1. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
I do not believe this applies here.
  1. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
Does not apply here.
It seems like the only argument for keeping this article is that their research is "significantly impactful"; as I've said above, I believe this assessment to be highly subjective, but I personally do not feel that their contributions meet this threshold. At best, these seem like contributions that should be mentioned in the articles for Archaea, CRISPR-Cas genome editing, and Bacteriophages (as they already are); were any of these discoveries so ground-breaking that their (in some cases, co-) discoverer merits their own page?Xardwen (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the research is not "significantly impactful" by Wikipedia's criteria. The individual behind the now-deleted accounts @Xerxescience and @Pantrail worded the content of the article to sound more impactful than it actually is. For example, why is it that Mr. Al-Shayeb "led" the work (as written in the Wikipedia article in question) that he co-first-authored with others while being supervised by his graduate school advisors, yet Mr. Al-Shayeb "supervised" the work (again, as the now-banned accounts wrote in the Wikipedia article in question) that was first-authored by another individual? For example, Mr. Al-Shayeb's co-founder and CEO, Dr. Jacob Borrajo, is first author on the most recent manuscript mentioned in the Wikipedia article in question and is also continuing to move the work forward as a current executive of Amber Bio (apparently without Mr. Al-Shayeb's "supervision"). In this example, it is clear to anyone in the field that Dr. Borrajo made the most substantial contributions to this work that is one of the Mr. Al-Shayeb's key accomplishments, yet Dr. Borrajo does not have a Wikipedia page. The same could be said for some of the other co-first authors and supervisors on the studies listed on Mr. Al-Shayeb's Wikipedia page.
If one were to argue that Mr. Al-Shayeb somehow meets the WP:NACADEMIC standards, then all 2000-3000 people issued an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship each year should have a Wikipedia page. Forbes 30 under 30 is not an academic award and uses irrelevant metrics such as how much wealth someone has as key criteria for selection, but if it were, then do we give all 600 people recognized with the Forbes 30 under 30 award each a Wikipedia page? And the tens of thousands of people who graduate with PhDs from prestigious universities and contribute work to renowned scientific journals; do we give all of them a Wikipedia page? No, because the line must be drawn somewhere. In this case, Mr. Al-Shayeb clearly falls on the side of the line that does not warrant this page to exist. Hemelina (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: To the closer: Please treat the now-blocked accounts Pantrail and Xerxescience as being the same person for the purpose of determining a consensus. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete.
    I think this article should be deleted because the subject clearly does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. The subject is not listed on any academic institution's website as being currently affiliated. There is no publicly available evidence that the subject has ever held an independent position at any academic institution that wasn't under the direct supervision of other faculty members. The subject is presented on the article as a "biotech executive", yet the subject is not currently listed as an executive on any current company's website. Disturbingly, two now-blocked accounts who turned out to be the same person, @Pantrail and @Xerxescience, repeatedly deleted verifiably true and well-cited edits made by multiple independent contributors. I will remind the individual behind these accounts that information cannot be libelous or defamatory if it is true. The individual behind these accounts, who I deduce is either the subject of this article or financially tied to the subject of this article, also reverted the article to present misleading information that promoted the financial interests of the article's subject. Wikipedia is not the place to advance individual financial interests. Please delete. Hemelina (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hemelina, first, you can only cast one bolded "vote" so I have struck your duplicate vote. Secondly, you have only been editing a week and have made a total of 12 edits, most of them to this article and AFD. You have no other global contributions with this account so I'm assuming you typically edit with a different account since you seem to have the Wikipedia jargon down pat. So, at least for me, your opinion carries less weight. I'd still like to hear from some "uninvolved" editors as all participants seem to have some sort of COI with this subject. Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We really need some uninvolved and non-sock editors to review this article and its sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
  • Note, this guy is a predoc fellow as per Google Scholar, which by definition means WP:NACADEMIC almost certainly does not apply. His H-Index is extremely high for a pre-doc, as per google scholar. [1], so maybe WP:NACADEMIC could apply in the future, but it is nowhere near high enough to apply right now.
  • Much of the sourcing is not independent or reliable or only mentions the subject in passing. Much of the sourcing that talks about his start up seems like promotional PR that goes along with any business.
  • The current writing on the article is strained and tortuous. At one point, there is a mention that Shayeb’s work is cited by a Nobel Laureate? I’d half-argue for WP:TNT even if the subject was notable enough.
Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also… what the heck happened that editors have a personal vendetta against a pre-doc scientist? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The only content in this article which could form a basis for notability is scientific output, within WP:NPROF. With an h-factor of 20, 3000 total citations and no senior awards he does not come close to any of the qualifications. This is an AfD where the case for delete is exceedingly strong, one of the strongest NPROF I have seen, but a lot of "noise" has been generated including many inappropriate personal attacks. Fortunately experienced editors/reviewers ignore inappropriate comments. For reference, I have no connection with anything here, but have done a fair bit of WP work. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments on sources (as requested). As mentioned above he does not qualify under WP:NPROF by a long distance. The points made in the article about the startup receiving funding count towards whether Amber Bio is notable enough to merit a page. However, they do not count towards his WP:GN, just as a notable book does not necessarily make the author notable. As some specifics on the sources:
    1. ORCID was duplicated (cleaned)
    2. Article contains significant WP:MILL for an academic, such as being a peer reviewer -- these should be deleted as irrelevant.
    3. Many authors in the papers. While not as large as HEP, this has to be considered for impact.
    4. Citing a Nobel Prize presentation is not what I would consider to be a strong source, particularly as the article comes from his supervisor -- WP:PEACOCK.
    5. Forbes cite on paper in Nature was invalid, removed
    6. Claim that genome editing system reported in Science Magazine was unsourced, deleted
    7. Claim of methane-oxidizing archaea reported in Nature is not verified, deleted
    8. Claim that he "supervised research" is not validated by source, which states "co-supervised". Changed
    9. Claim that he was listed as an "All-Star Alumni for his scientific contributions" not verified, so "for his scientific contributions removed".
    Ldm1954 (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comments on sources.
    1. The article claims that he coined the term "Borg's", but C&EN says that came from Jillian Banfield’s son. I trust C&EN.
    There certainly are (were) substantial liberties taken with the sources. They do provide coverage, but I do not see anything in the sources which prove sufficient peer recognition for him. Several might support the startup, but that is out of context here. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create protect per WP:SIGCOV, WP:PROF, WP:MILL, and WP:NOTRESUME. There’s clearly a lack of a minimum of three articles or books with significant coverage about this person in reliable and independent sources; I count precisely zero. He’s not a named professor or similar academic. His $26 million startup is one of dozens in the world today working on CRISPR. I took a graduate course online in summer 2021 where AP Biology teachers were taught how to use the technology (the only reason I didn’t use it was because I registered at too late to do the lab portion of the class, but I still earned an A for my final project). So it’s nothing special. Finally, in 2024, everyone knows that Wikipedia doesn’t exist to help people with publicity; we are an encyclopedia. Many of our readers don’t grok how we handle notability, but even 14 year olds understand that we have standards; to claim otherwise is to deny one’s own agency in the age of Internet 2.0. We are a charity, and not just a social media platform. Bearian (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.