Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Brendan Ryan

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. Mailer Diablo 15:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J. Brendan Ryan

I think this person does not fill Wikipedia's criteria for notability and thus should be deleted. Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies Awiseman 16:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Chairman of a major company. JoshuaZ 02:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Awiseman, your previous prod of this article was removed by Monicasdude with the argument "chairman of largest advertising agency in US should be so obviously notable as to require no discussion". Could you please address this objection? I wish you had actually done so in your nomination. It is not clear how the guideline you refer to is applicable in this case, as it seems to contain nothing specific on businesspeople. How is the "chairman of [the] largest advertising agency in [the] US" (assuming the article and Monicasdude are correct) less notable than, say, a player for a reasonably successful American college football team, or a novelist selling 5001 copies of a book? u p p l a n d 03:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and tag for cleanup. TheProject 04:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Seems notable enough for mine and there are verifiable sources like this available [1]. Capitalistroadster 07:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per JoshuaZ and Capitalistroadster. JIP | Talk 09:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per u p p l a n d. I don't much mind the inclusion of the examples mentioned by that user, but we can also find some room for someone who is actually important if the article's assertions about him are correct. Metamagician3000 09:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Assuming the article is correct, this is a keep. -- The Anome 12:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While the company is notable, I'm not sure that this individual is. Zaxem 17:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to mention that working in a notable company does not make the CEO notable. -- ReyBrujo 17:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if I am allowed to vote, since I made the objection. I don't think he is notable per the Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies, as he passes none of those tests, such as "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" which he does not do. He may be a CEO of a big advertising company, but he doesn't seem to be in the news, other than for being promoted. --Awiseman 18:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Technically speaking, a recommendation to delete is implied in a nomination. You shouldn't put another delete further down the discussion, as it may result in a position appearing to have more support than it does. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per others. Somone might be looking for this information for business related reasons. Arbusto 23:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, I don't think Wikipedia is the right resource. Awiseman 04:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep I am surprised, to say the least, that it is suggested that being a major businessman is not a sufficient criterion for notability in itself. Tyrenius 01:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Please point us where in WP:BIO it is stated that being the CEO of a company makes you notable enough for Wikipedia. I haven't found that section anywhere, but since I kind of think he must have done something right in order to be the CEO of a company, I am abstaining myself from voting. -- ReyBrujo 02:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• We more or less automatically, by longstanding consensus, accept inclusion of anyone working in a significant enough position in certain businesses, such as professional football (either kind), baseball or cricket (where it is enough to be hired to sit on a bench for most of a couple of seasons). Isn't it just systemic bias not to include a prominent, and very likely influential, businessman just because the business he is attached to doesn't have a fan club? u p p l a n d 02:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree with this logic, as athletes are public figures who do their "work" in front of fans and thus are much more visible than businessmen, who generally work behind the scenes and rarely get in the news. Awiseman 04:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, many such businessmen are often in the news (that's why many papers have a daily business section in addition to a daily sports section). Anyways, that's en argument that would be relevant if this were Wikiabloid, however, it is Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 05:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• WP:BIO etc should be treated as inclusionary rules, not exclusionary rules. If someone holds an intrinsically important position they should get in anyway, even if they don't fall under some specific guideline. Someone like this person is asserted to be is much more important in the real world than an obscure author who has managed to get a book published with a print run of just over 5000, or even quite a lot more than that number, or any of the many other examples we could think of. Metamagician3000 11:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. He climbed the greasy pole of corporate management to the top. And...? Nothing, really. No pioneering work cited, no Clio awards, nothing that distinguishes him from any other corporate seat-warmer. He's no Hal Riney. --Calton | Talk 03:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. CEO of major corporation- in the real world, that's called major achievement. -- JJay 02:11, 8 May 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.