Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Gilbert (design executive)

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) — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Gilbert (design executive)[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)

Deeply promotional article - PROD and G11 declined, so here we are. IBM executive, not notable per WP:GNG, not exceptional or outstanding but littered with the language of cultural transformation and 'the philosophy is to identify users’ needs as a starting point.' (Seriously?) That apart, "Corporate presidents, chief executive officers and chairpersons of the boards of directors of companies listed in the Fortune 500 (US) or the FTSE 100 Index (UK) are generally kept as notable." This ain't that. Fails WP:BUSINESSPERSON. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Technology, Computing, Internet, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For transparency: I PRODed the article while assessing the article for WikiProject Oklahoma because it struck me as promotional and the sourcing was not great. There has been sourcing improvement since the PROD, but it still probably doesn't meet WP:GNG. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Oklahoma and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable per refs in the article: The Irish Times,^[1] The New York Times,^[2] Fortune^[3][4]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All interviews, so don't take us past GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Times article interleaves Gilbert's comments with commentary of its own (558 words out of 1364 by my subjective count). It's not a classic interview - sort of a hybrid.

The Fortune articles have some of their own prefatory commentary (301 and 385 words).

The New York Times article is not an interview at all -- it's a lengthy profile of Gilbert and IBM overall. It has a few short quotes from Gilbert but not a lot. 699 words about Gilbert and 2269 about IBM's design efforts overall (which Gilbert is leading).

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 07:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say The Irish Times provides significant coverage of Gilbert; most of it is quoting him directly or indirectly about changes at IBM, and very little is about Gilbert at all. The New York Times talks more about Gilbert's career and such, but not a terrible lot here either. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources given by A. B. are sufficient to meet WP:BIO and they are not simple interviews where the subject spouts whatever they like. SmartSE (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the sources as described above, there are a few mentions of the individual in Gscholar talking about design, I'd give it a pass. Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on my research, the mentioned article is notable enough to be kept; albeit this is better to add more prominent sources to the page, as well. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2023 (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.