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. Consensus that though there are sources, their quality is not sufficient to meet GNG Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Peter L. Levin

Peter L. Levin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

Subject has a substantial number of sources, but I question their usability. They include press releases and other outright PR documents, primary sources, and pieces authored by the subject rather than about the subject. CTO of the DVA doesn't seem to be a position that confers inherent notability. BD2412 T 15:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: The article was created by an effective WP:SPA, whose edits are almost entirely on this subject, and on a related Blue Button product. BD2412 T 15:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep I think there is enough here to meet WP:GNG, .gov profile, USA Today mention, etc. Peter303x ( talk) 23:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Can you show me the policies allowing a .gov profile and USA Today mention to fulfill the requirements of the GNG? To me this looks like a paid editing job trying to manufacture notability out of insufficient material. Literally the entirety of the USA Today "mention is: "It is the department's first effort at automating claims processing in its 80-year history, says VA chief technology officer Peter Levin. It comes as the agency struggles to cut a backlog of more than 1 million disability claims, appeals and other cases. The system "is likely to break" if nothing is done, Levin says". There is no biographical information about Levin other than his job title, and no other mention of him in the article. BD2412 T 00:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete. One well-cited paper in a high-citation field [1] is not enough for WP:PROF#C1, so we need to rely on WP:GNG instead. But the case for that also looks weak. In the as-nominated version of the article, my analysis of the sources is:

1. A web page listing people associated with an organization, neither independent nor reliable nor in-depth.

2. Press release from a school he studied at. Not independent, dubiously reliable.

3. Deadlink and appears to be a press release.

4. Deadlink, appears to be another bare listing of people associated with an organization.

5. Internal news story from employer, not independent.

6. EE Times. Good source.

7. Deadlink business press-release churnalism, more about company than him.

8. Deadlink primary record of grant funding, not in-depth coverage of him.

9. Deadlink executive profile, routine coverage for people in this area and therefore non-contributory towards notability.

10. Employer profile, non-independent.

11. Quoted in a news story not about him, insufficiently in-depth.

12. Deadlink government employee profile, dubiously reliable or in-depth (because it's a deadlink I can't tell but most sites like this just scrape government-published employee profile data rather than adding any value).

13. Dubiously-reliable churnalism news story that quotes him, insufficiently in-depth.

14. Government press release coauthored by Levin rather than being about him.

15. FCW "Federal 100" profile. Very little depth of coverage.

16. FedScoop. In-depth but is it reliable? "He told FedScoop in an exclusive interview": Interviews generally don't count towards notability.

17. Company main web site, not about Levin.

18. FedScoop again, but this time as a deadlink. Doesn't contribute any more than the first one already did.

19. Interviews don't generally count towards notability.

20. Directly labeled as a press release.

21. About Amida, doesn't mention Levin.

22. Paywalled reprint of an article by Levin, not about Levin.

23, 25, 26, 27, 28. More articles by Levin, not about him.

24. Searching for the web shows that the same text can be found on many sites in a context suggesting that the site asked Levin for a profile and this is what he provided. That is, some web site has copied the profile that Levin wrote and uses as his own, and is publishing it as if they wrote it and researched it. Not independent.

29. A press release that mentions Levin's name only very briefly. Neither reliable nor in-depth.

The only source I am convinced by is the EE Times one. The rest are just puffery. And one good source is not enough for WP:GNG. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per David Eppstein's well reasoned analysis showing that Levin does not meet notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:33, 4 February 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.