Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Storey

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) Lourdes 04:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Storey[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Little coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, "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." Storey is the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, see here. It's debatable, however, whether that should outweigh the paucity of coverage of him as an individual. There are two articles more or less about him used as sources which date from the time he was made CEO. One is from the Denver Post and the other is from a trade publication Fierce Wireless and looks very press-release based. The Bloomberg Business Week profile is compiled by Standard and Poor's which at least has editorial oversight. The fourth source, a Forbes profile, is a broken link which I was unable to recover via archive.org, but judging from this example, they are standard company-supplied bios which do not attest in themselves to notability and is simply "reference padding". The only other coverage of him that I could find, were press-released based announcements of his taking medical leave and subsequently returning from it in early 2014. Note also that this article was created by a "member" of this massive sockfarm, whose creations smack rather powerfully of paid editing, e.g. [1], [2]. Voceditenore (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only test that matters is: do we have sufficient coverage in reliable independent sources, to write a verifiably neutral and factual article? Subject-specific notability guidelines are a plague and should all be burned with fire, they cause exactly this kind of confusion all the itme. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the CV sourced and supplied by Standard and Poor's and the Denver Post article are enough to write a short, but neutral and factual article. Do you agree. Guy? If so, and if the lack of any other independent coverage of him is immaterial, then I guess the appropriate decision would be to keep it. Voceditenore (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Can you be more specific please. What part of wp:notable are you reffering to? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Keep notable. JLOPO (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what sources? Guy (Help!) 08:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The GNG is what should generally be avoided like the plague, unless it is impossible to have a rational SNG. The WP concept of notability is artificial, based only on the availability of sources to the people who work here using the tools those working in a subject happen to have available, and does not correspond in any direct manner to suitability for an encyclopedia -- nor even to the actual existence of sources. It's the sort of rough fix we used to make in earlier years, and it is what's primarily responsible for the great distortions in coverage between different fields. It's also what's responsible for the number of debates here that hinge of using forced interpretations of the qualifications in the GNG for "independent", "substantial", and "reliable", which are generally attempts to accommodate the GNG to the reality.

However, the degree of support for the various provisions of common outcomes varies with the different subjects. For examplehe provision for schools has matched the results 99.9% of the times in both directions for 5 years or so . The provision for businessmen has had less support in practice, probably marching the result about 90% of the times. And none of the provisions there are actually SNGs in the formal sense, only statements of what usually happens. "What usually happens" can make a practical guideline, but it's not actually a SNG.

Therefore saying keep or delete in this AfD is a judgment call on whether to follow the GNG or to make an exception. There's no way of deciding that except consensus in each individual case. This particular instance is not a case where not making an exception would be utterly absurd. so it's reasonable to have different opinions. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree profoundly. Wikipedia is not a directory, and the GNG is founded on the availability of sources sufficient to ensure compliance with core policy (verifiability and NPOV) whereas virtually every SNG is a box-ticking exercise perfect for a directory but making no reference to whether we can actually source the thing. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have to concur with DGG. However, I would point out that we are not desperate for such articles especially when they were created by a mass abuser of multiple accounts and some of our dedicated members feel they have to clean the stuff up to keep it. So it's a reluctant keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Kudpung: Yes this article was created on 4 January 2015 by a wp:blocked user. But more than a year earlier, on 6 November 2013, I created Jeff Storey which was tagged for a speedy deletion within minutes. Then again It was proposed for deletion on 12 September 2016, at which point it was redirected to Jeffrey Storey by one of the participants in this discussion. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

I was the one who redirected Ottawahitech's 2013 version, Jeff Storey. When it was PROD-ed last week, i.e. three years after its creation, it still looked like this, a one sentence sub-stub with one broken bare url for a reference. Hence, I redirected it to the more complete and better referenced version. Voceditenore (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm making the same judgement call as DGG on the basis that he is the president and CEO of a major company and that we have enough reliable published sources to write a short, neutral, and factual article (see my comments above). I have re-written it to a large extent—copyediting for coherence and removing the excessive use of subheadings which are not justified by its length. Voceditenore (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Voceditenore. Montanabw^(talk) 21:30, 20 September 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.