Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George L. Miles

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 of the debate was keep all. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George L. Miles, Morris W. Offit, Edmund S. W. Tse, Michael H. Sutton, Stephen L. Hammerman and Donald P. Kanak

One or two-line stubs on the directors of a company. User:Monicasdude opposed the prod listings as "Being a director of ninth-largest business in world isn't a clear indication of notability?". Well, no, not really. How many directors would then need to have one-line stub? It would be very difficult to find more bio info on these guys, even if they were notable. At the very least these should be merged to American International Group, but all it would have is their names mentioned. Delete. Harro5 22:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• comment Monicasdude is probably right, but it's hard to tell fomr these articles. Surely there must be more than this we can say about these guys? Just zis Guy you know? 22:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Harro, those were my proposed deletions. Thank you for submitting them for re-consideration here. I can see Monicasdude's point, but in my mind these people don't reach notability, despite the fact that they guide a very large corporation. Corporate boards usually have 12-15 members and can be populated by relatively famous figures, George Schultz comes to mind, and maybe CEOs and CFOs of other corporations, and maybe people who have operational expertise but are unknown outside their own organizations. IMO corporate board membership does not by itself make a person notable or influential. One source I found (http://www.boardmember.com/member_directory/dbase_brochure.pdf) suggests that, if you count up the board members of major publically-traded companies you get 53,000 names, and these names change all the time. The fact that the membership of these boards interlock and comprise a government-educational-corporate sort of ruling class is a significant, but separate, issue. User:Chadlupkes will want to know, since he's been filling in a lot of these names. My vote is Delete but this deserves further discussion here. If we do delete these three, then other American International Group board members should go with them, if they are listed only because of their board membership: M. Bernard Aidinoff, Pei-yuan Chia, Marshall A. Cohen, William S. Cohen, Martin S. Feldstein, Ellen V. Futter, Stephen L. Hammerman, Michael H. Sutton, Edmund S. W. Tse, and Frank G. Zarb. I would keep Carla A. Hills, Richard C. Holbrooke and Martin J. Sullivan as significant for other reasons based on what I see. --Lockley 23:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for bringing me into the discussion. I'll vote for keep, because I have a particular interest in developing these sorts of lists for research purposes, but I'll understand if the community disagrees. The cross-board membership of so many people is of personal interest to a lot of people I know, and Wikipedia seemed to be the best way to keep track of this sort of information. There are a few other wiki sites out there open to collect it outside of Wikipedia. 53,000 is a pretty large number, although I've mostly been concentrating on the DOW30. Is there an article related to the subject of board members being part of multiple boards? Chadlupkes 14:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Honestly, it's been very difficult to find bio information that doesn't come directly from the corporate websites, and I've been scolded for that. I don't see the point of protecting that sort of information, but that's another discussion. Chadlupkes 14:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Monicasdude's deprodding. Being stub sized certainly isn't a reason for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

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.