Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Bogner

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Peter Bogner

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Peter Bogner (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)

Notability is largely WP:INHERITED from his organisation GISAID. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC),

Nomination withdrawn. I apologise for not realising that several of the sources are prior to Mr Bogner's involvement with GISAID. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Keep This is a very lazy nomination which makes no attempt to examine the sources and explain why it is a WP:INHERITED situation. While it is true that the coverage about him is also about GISAID, there are multiple reliable sources that provide in depth biographical information: WSJ, Science 2006 and Science 2023. The last one is an incredible piece of investigative journalism and provides extensive biographical information and which would not belong in the GISAID article. On the basis of those three sources, WP:BIO is met. SmartSE (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, Germany, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly notable per WP:BASIC which is "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." with the following sources sufficient: WSJ, Science 2006 and Science 2023 Disclosure: I created the article and removed a notability tag placed during initial page review after making my case for doing so on the talk page: Talk:Peter Bogner#Case for Notability. I am one of ten thousands of user's of the database which the subject created and is operating. AncientWalrus (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Keep meets WP:BASIC Lightburst (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Keep In addition to those mentioned above, there's also this study that has a fair bit of information about Bogner:

• Elbe, Stefan; Buckland-Merrett, Gemma (January 10, 2017). "Data, disease and diplomacy: GISAID's innovative contribution to global health". Global Challenges. 1 (1): 33–46. doi:10.1002/gch2.1018. Retrieved May 18, 2023.

And I think that all very clearly meets the general notability requirements. Silverseren^C 16:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

FWIW I would consider the Elbe et al source you mention to not be independent. It is far from neutral, praising Bogner and GISAID uncritically. Furthermore, GISAID explicitly promotes citations to the article:

When making the first reference to your use of data obtained through GISAID, cite GISAID as the source of these data used in your analysis by adding footnote to appear in your References section to one of the three sources for citation below
— https://gisaid.org/publish/

Many of the authors claims appear to be refuted or at least thrown into doubt by Science 2023. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure it's biased. I thought the same after reading it myself. But it's still reliable source coverage, that doesn't change just because of bias. And the useful thing is that its claims can be used and then refuted with the Science one, giving much better context as a whole on the sort of lies that were pushed by Bogner at the time. Silverseren^C 17:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Reply to withdrawal: This is not true. Peter Bogner became notable through his involvement with GISAID. But that doesn't mean he isn't notable in and of himself. So while I appreciate you withdrawing the nomination, the reason you give for the withdrawal is not correct. AncientWalrus (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  @MrsSnoozyTurtle would you like to close the discussion yourself with speedy keep? This is possible according to

  WP:CLOSEAFD, specifically the procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal) AncientWalrus (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I would be happy to do that. I will look at those instructions now. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:48, 18 May 2023 (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.