Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Amen

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. Consensus is that the article is in woeful state, but that sources are available that demonstrate notability. Hopefully one of the "keepers" will take some time... 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Amen[edit]

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2018 February 18.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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

Just not a notable CEO. There is not enough coverage of him to pass WP:BASIC. Sourcing in the article is almost non-existent and when I search for him all I can find is a few press releases. Article was deproded by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) who I like to thank for leaving an explanation this time, which was "not eligible for PROD his claim is that he is CEO of International Flavors and Fragrances from 2006 to 2009)" While it is a true statement that he was CEO of a notable company, a CEO does not inherit notability from a company. Rusf10 (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. If anyone can't find references, it is time for them to take a refresher course in Internet searching. It is bad faith to declare that no references are available especially when using the PROD process. This is the sixth time PROD was cancelled and references found, and those are just the ones that I dePRODed. --RAN (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's take a look at the sources you found. You obviously spent a lot of time on this, so I guess these are the best sources out there. We have a Bloomberg profile, which actually isn't a reliable source, despite being on Bloomberg's website it relies on user submitted data. The Colombia Business school staff directory (doesn't do anything to establish notability, all other staff have these) and a few other brief passing mentions that certainly are not in-depth coverage, all routine (ie. he was hired and then he was fired). None of these sources constitute "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."--Rusf10 (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Can you point out which part of the biography is original research caused by the lack of significant coverage? You use the word "significant coverage" in every argument, but each time you divorce it from its actual definition. --RAN (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg article says: "The information and data displayed in this profile are created and managed by S&P Global Market Intelligence, a division of S&P Global." Again a misrepresentaion when you say "it relies on user submitted data". I know we live in a post-truth world, but Wikipedia tries to be accurate, so can you. --RAN (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been had before, see [1] & [2]--Rusf10 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which appears to be just as incorrect as you. They cite no evidence, just as you have not, where I cut and pasted the factual information from the website. Do you recognize the irony that you are using user submitted data from Wikipedia to bolster your argument that S&P Global Market Intelligence is an unreliable source. --RAN (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source is basically created by user submissions. The evidence is that big blue button that says "request profile update." Wikipedia is not a reliable source and neither is this. We already have a consensus not to use these Bloomberg profiles as a reliable source. If you disagree, take it to the reliable source noticeboard.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I see are comments in a discussion, no formal RFC, no formal reliable source ruling, no blacklisting of the website. Nor do I see an edit button on the Bloomberg website that allows users to "basically create" a profile. If you think it is unreliable, the burden is one you to prove your suspicions. A big blue button for "request profile update" shows that site is under editorial control, the opposite of what you are saying. If it wasn't under editorial control the big blue button would say "click here to edit a profile" or "click here to add yourself". If you think anyone can add a profile, please add yourself and show us the link. --RAN (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman's argument, my friend. I never said that just anybody could get listed, I said the information is unreliable. There is a huge difference.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also according to WP:RS- "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, internet forums, the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), Ancestry.com, content farms, most wikis including Wikipedia, and other collaboratively created websites. In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source." This clearly falls into that category, so you can't use it.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can use anything that is accurate. You just cannot count sources from self-written or non-editorially supervised blogs towards GNG. There is a difference. Carrite (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it was clear, it would have named the website. You make this argument often. And then you are going to argue that these are just examples, then I am going to say "just substitute in the New York Times" and it clearly means that website too. If it meant this website, it would have mentioned it. This is not the place to make your argument, take it to the reliable source noticeboard. --RAN (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's always your argument, it doesn't specifically say this or that, as if someone could possibly create a list of every unreliable website with user-submitted content in existence. I challenge you to find me the policy that says all sources are considered reliable until it is proven they are not.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is what the blacklist is for. Take it to the reliable source noticeboard and get it blacklisted. --RAN (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're wasting everyone's time, but I will.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kudos to Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) for his working expanding the article with the reliable and verifiable sources needed to back up his claim of notability as a CEO of multiple major corporations. Alansohn (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References are primarily corporate press releases. Not sufficient to support heightened WP:BLP requirements.--Rpclod (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RAN has demonstrated the potential for improvement of this article, and also the subject's notability. Davey2116 (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See deletion review
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First off: terribly written article, needs to be translated from telegraphese to plain English. However, there are sufficient available sources for this former Fortune 500 CEO (International Paper does $23.6+ billion dollars of business a year) to support encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 18:51, 25 February 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.