Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerry Pennell

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 delete. Sandstein 09:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Pennell[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Although he has worked for some notable organisations, this does not infer notability. He also holds an OBE, but this does not infer notability either. He has some marginal notability for alleged failure (see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/01/university_of_manchesters_it_director_resigns/) but I don't think it is enough to warrant a listing. Furthermore, more of the work on the article appears to have been done by a single-purposes account which makes me suspect that it may have been written by someone connected with the article's subject. Shritwod (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has some notoriety in connection with the CO-OP bank fiasco, a major event in recent UK financial history. The fact that his actions have had definite effects on people, especially those made redundant in his re-structurings, and on the history of such notable institutions as the CO-OP and Olympic Games speaks to his relevance. Perhaps the problem is the sparseness of the article, and not the notability of its subject? Urselius (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: he would have notability in certain circles - for example, notable enough to be mentioned in specialist publications (technology or banking, maybe). But ultimately what is different between this person and anyone else who runs a large IT department? We don't even list the CEO of many FTSE 100 companies, so managing IT for a bank doesn't really make him notable. It's unusual to manage an IT department and have an OBE I guess.. Shritwod (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The OBE was for his involvement in the Olympic Games, perhaps that is the strongest case for notability? Billlion (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to this about 500 people annually receive an OBE. While it certainly adds to his notability, we wouldn't create an entry for all of those 500 people every year on the basis that they were awarded one. Shritwod (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed. What I meant was that perhaps his work on the Olympics is what his is known for while Coop and UoM are

just 'what he did next'.Billlion (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although the listed coverage is noticeable, this article is still questionable for the applixable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Assuming that the Order of the British Empire does not a notable person make (correct me if I'm wrong), I don't believe subject is notable. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 08:13, 17 February 2016 (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.