Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Krein

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. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Krein

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable physician , still an Assistant professor, with scientific papers that do not meet WP:PROF (citations: 59, 49, 32). The firm where he's a medical director is non-notable , the only public position he's ever had is being on the board of directors of the family foundation of his spouse's family. He is reported to advise his father in law, but has no official position and I do not see how he would be qualified for one. The need for some content has driven the article to include that he "attended the official kickoff at the University of Pennsylvania"

I accept that we usually include the immediate family of a head of state, because there is usually enough public interest (though we have only about 2/3 of the children of US Presidents--see List_of_children_of_the_presidents_of_the_United_States --we have deleted the articles on Obama's children and on Barron Trump. But Krein is not even the child of a head of state, but the spouse of the child of a Head of State, and therefore not part of the immediate family--not a biological relation at all. Any coverage not just a mention in an article about his wife's father, would thus be human interest tabloid style coverage, and that's not he purpose of an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia does a piss-poor job of covering both politics and knowledge workers. The nominator's comments set out his personal opinions as to why the subject should not be notable, but do exactly nothing to weigh and analyze the actual coverage the subject has received, which is extensive and substantial. And when I see the comment that Krein "has no official position and I do not see how he would be qualified for one," I wonder where the nominator has been for the last few years and mutter names like "Jared" and "Lara" under my breath while suppressing guffaws. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Family mebers of heads of state are notable figures. Also Krein is a noted entrepreneur and famous physician in his hospital and area. He is frequently mentioned in Joe Biden's own books as a key figure in the family who Joe would often go to for advice. and frankly relatives of presidential figures are notable by being related. if Valerie Biden Owens has an article then Howard Krein should have article as well.
- Comment The above comment in its rationale is textbook violation of WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability at all; closest claim is being a twice-removed family member from Joe Biden. I disagree with the assertion that family members of heads of state are inherently notable; that flies in the face of WP:NOTINHERITED. TJRC (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly an example WP:NOTINHERITED. Being in the extended family of a politician is not a notability guideline. KidAd • SPEAK 20:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on GNG, while generally WP:NOTINHERITED applies, there is enough independent coverage with him as subject to pass GNG: [1] [2] [3] including specific discussions about conflicts of interest: [4]. This is not a case of WP:NOTINHERITED but there is clearly independent discussion about him and his political role in the media. --hroest 09:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While not all keep reasoning is policy-based, there is sufficient dissent on notability grounds that currently on those grounds it remains in need of further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. ABC News, Haaretz, The Hill, and Politico all have articles that provide significant coverage about him (the focus is not Joe Biden). There seems to be much misunderstanding of what WP:NOTINHERETED means. Part of that guidance page reads Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. This articles does pass GNG, though some of the press releases and gossip column whatnot ought to be purged. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/ Redirect to Family of Joe Biden. Clearly an example WP:NOTINHERITED.4meter4 (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking again at the references, almost none of them would have covered him except for the relationship. The contents ofthe articles also discusses him in those terms--why else would the details of his wedding possibly be included? Coverage of people for their relationship rather than their accomplishments is what's meant by NOT TABLOID, and that is part of the fundamental inclusion policy,WP:NOT. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG's excellent reasoning above. Maybe a redirect to Family of Joe Biden, but there's no meaningful content here to work with. WP:NOTINHERITED, just being a nondescript assistant professor with some family members notable for totally unrelated reasons doesn't confer notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per DGG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. This was listed in the wrong place by arguing about NACADEMIC instead of GNG. See comments by hroest and others. I also think this should not have been re-listed when there was enough to close this AfD as "no consensus" or "keep". Keeping the red banner up for longer only does more harm than good. Dr. Universe (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Indy beetle pointed out above, WP:NOTINHERITED says Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. So we need to assess whether Klein meets GNG. With there being 23 sources cited in the article, I do wonder how many reviewers get to their tenth duff citation and assume that the others are probably just as bad and therefore GNG is not met. In this case, just two or three qualify as in-depth, independent coverage by a reliable source - see my assessment of all 23 at Talk:Howard Krein#Notability assessment. Therefore, I would say that the WP:BASIC threshold has been passed. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and per User:Curb Safe Charmer's careful source assessment. Looking at the sources (particularly the ones assessed as in-depth and independent) confirmed CSC's assessment for me. No pass of WP:PROF evident, but none is needed if other notability is present. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2021 (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.