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The result was Withdrawn. Hairhorn bundling articles into the AFD ruined the discussion Joe Chill (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The prod was contested two days ago. All that I can find is trivial mentions in articles that are about the company. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not all CEOs are notable. The same user has a list of CEO entries, many of them not notable for anything else. Some of them are already up for deletion. Some may be borderline cases. I would like to add the remaining entries to this nomination, so they can at least be looked over for notability:
Keep all. Daniel Dimicco Chairman and former CEO of one of the world's largest steel makers. The others are also CEOs opf large firms --- just ones that I did not recognise at first The others appear of no note and their firms quite minor - delete themBigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all articles should be set for deletion under their own names, not as a list. This deletion listing could be skewed because multiple articles are up for deletion.
I put them in the same nomination, because they are all short CEO articles written by the same editor, and all nominated for non-notability. It's more work to go through, but it's an appropriate multiple nom. If people only want to vote on one entry, vote on one entry. Hairhorn (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep These include chief executive officers of major companies Nucor and Owens-Illinois (a fortune 500 company). Another is CEO of Praxair? These are very important and powerful companies and chief executive officers of companies this size are inherently notable and undoubtedly there is enough content out there to establish that. I'm not sure why these are at AfD at all. Craig R Smith was cheif executive officer of Murphy Oil, one of the 100 largest companies in the U.S. for a dozen and some odd years. These articles should be expanded. They also serve on other imporant boards and are major players in finance, governance and education. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is Craig R Smith notable simply for being CEO of Owens & Minor? That's it? Hairhorn (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
quote - They also serve on other imporant boards and are major players in finance, governance and education - endquote. Then put verifiable links onto the Biographies Trevor Marron (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible Delete - They are only notable if you consider the position they hold as being notable, they are then only notable by association to that position. None of them have any articles about them in major publications etc. So where do you draw the line? Is the CEO of EVERY company of note, simply as the CEO? I feel they are not. Wikipedia is not a collection of indisctiminate information and if we go adding CEOs then that is where it is going. By all means a CEO can be mentioned on the company's article if there is one, but they don't justify a BIO based simply on their job or income. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do know the difference between a biographical article about someone and an article where someone is interviewed about something, don't you? Trevor Marron (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:Please keep it civil. I think a lengthy interview with Forbes fits the bill for showing notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per Trevor Marron. Per Ardua (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete which? The nom raises the point that "[s]ome may be borderline cases." Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm the nom and I didn't say that. Hairhorn bundled them together and said that. Joe Chill (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all. CEOs of Fortune 500 companies and major industrial businesses generally meet the GNG, although coverage is not necesarily in easily accessed online sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being CEO of a major corporation is at least as strong an indication of notability for a businessman as having released two albums is for a pop singer or having played a match in a professional league is for a sportsperson. And please don't quote WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS back at me - this argument is not based on the fact that such other articles exist, but that they are accepted as having automatic notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note details of DiMicco's career and his membership on the Manufacturing Council -- a body set up by the federal government to "represent" manufacturing have been added. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job there, his article is looking more like an entry should, not just 'He is CEO for ABC and earns XYZ' The AfD really does need splitting into individual discussions. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed -- I suppose (but cannot say for certain) that similar development can be done to at least some of the others. Clearly someone created some weak stubs of CEO types with their affiliation and salaries and nothing else. I think that doesn't mean that they are fit for deletion -- necessarily. The only thing these articles seem to have in common is their style and their author. That's not a great reason in my opinion to bundle them in one AfD. I would favour closing this afd and opening new ones for each of the different CEOs. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm annoyed that Hairhorn bundled them together in my nomination. I wish that users wouldn't count the others as part of the nomination. Joe Chill (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2009 (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.
