Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Corbat

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) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Corbat[edit]

[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)

Not quite sure if it meets notability. There isn't any references about his deeds outside of information about the guy. A lot of content on the page has been tagged as citation needed. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 16:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 16:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 16:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG. Multiple sources about Corbat specifically, not just Citigroup in general, including WSJ, Reuters, CNBC, NY Times (Dealbook) and Business Insider. This makes sense, since he's the CEO of such a large company. I was expecting to need to demonstrate notability by patching together isolated mentions in various articles about Citigroup, but with so many dedicated articles on Corbat himself, I see no reason to delete. I genuinely don't understand the complaint that the references only include " information about the guy". What else do you want them to include? MarginalCost (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I might be interpreting it wrong. I thought that he needs to have done something to be notable, not just hold position. Also, many of the content on his life and career sections have {{citation needed}} tagged. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 18:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

“

The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. ... Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.
The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.

”

WP:ANYBIO --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article can pass using either the biography-specific guidelines you linked to, or using the General notability guidelines, which is specifically mentioned in the sentence right before the section you linked to, and this subject passes the GNG easily.

I also agree with Icewhiz below that the article's tone is not overly promotional (certainly not enough to merit the 8 separate cleanup tags currently on it). Yes, it lists his various responsibilities through his career, but does so in a fairly boring and neutrally-worded way for the most part.

There are two "citation needed" tags in the article, only the second of which is of any real import. (There were three at the time of your nomination, but I referenced one of them at the time of my original !vote). They do not change the core notability of the subject, and the article would still stand on its own perfectly fine if the sentences were removed. Deletion is not cleanup. MarginalCost (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I've removed the uncited claim about social clubs, and also removed the cleanup notices. See the talk page discussion to discuss these specific cleanup concerns, keep notability discussion at this AFD. MarginalCost (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think that looks good. Initially the article seem to be original research with the 3 citation needed tags. Really 3? I thought there was more. And I might have misunderstood notability to think that the person have to be notable on his own right and not for his position.

Another concern is that one of the editors have disclosed their connection with the subject and no doubt is paid for that. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 08:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject does have to be notable in his own right; notability is not inherited. What I and the other keep voters are saying is that the multiple reliable and independent sources which give significant coverage to the subject are evidence of that notability per the general notability guidelines. No one is saying that all CEO's are notable. Now if you're concerned about the conflict of interest editing, find the offending portions and remove them or ask for a source. But given the state of sourcing and lack of overly promotional phrasing, deletion isn't the appropriate remedy. MarginalCost (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He may be notable, but at the moment it reads like a CV published by the company he works for. If it can't be made less promotional, I will vote to delete and start again from scratch. There's probably a COI somewhere in the history, if not more than one. Deb (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 08:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 02:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 02:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 02:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 02:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The CEO of Citigroup, a 168 Billion dollar market cap company, clearly meets GNG as evident in a BEFORE. Article ins't overly promotional - some bits and ends could use cleanup, but it is not too bad.Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came here because of the college football reference. Just based on that, he would likely not be notable--but why check? The CEO of Citgroup generates enough press to surpass WP:GNG and is worthy of inclusion. The college football information is a good entry into the article of an already well-established notable individual.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG criteria Snowycats (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2018 (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.