Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Kirshbaum

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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Kirshbaum[edit]

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

Non-notable non-CEO executive. MBisanz ^talk 03:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable my left petunia. There are over 20K hits for Kirshbaum via Google; he's been appointed to what may well be one of the most important positions in publishing today, after holding a significant position in 'traditional' media.

Did the deletion nominator bother to look him up before nominating for deletion? Hmmm :P ?

See http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/amazons-hit-man-01252012.html., (a FIVE PAGE article on him in Business Week) or http://www.observer.com/term/larry-kirshbaum/ (that's 20+ articles on him by the New York Observer).

Non-notable? Really? What this case reveals is Wikipedia's highly disproportionate / biased coverage of certain topics and areas, especially business, if not a downright hostility/bias to topics that are not tech/trendy (note this topic is!). KenThomas (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems clearly notable - the above plus lots on Google News and Books. --Michig (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lazy nominator. Notable. SL93 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Slam dunk keep, with substantial pieces from Bloomberg's and Wall Street Journal showing. In an ideal world I would hang an ARTICLE RESCUE SQUADRON template and the mice would get to work on this, but for some bizarre reason that is no longer an option, so this will just have to sit until somebody discovers it and gets fired up to work on it. Carrite (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep While the hell was this discussion relisted? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:50, 18 April 2012 (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.