Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Adler

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 non-consensus keep ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Adler

Possible vanity article. An important and accomplished person to be sure, but notable enough to warrant his own article? I don't think so. GT 01:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Expedia, as he seems to be the CFO of that company --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • He's the future CFO, beginning next month. Just to be sure that everyone's clear on that. GT 08:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not worth keeping as a redirect. Is the the kids visit with them frequently a new low in triviality? Dlyons493 Talk 02:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep; But major cleanup definitely necessary — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 02:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as the CFO of a major corporation is notable. Definitely needs some cleanup. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, CFO of a massive corporation, but definitely needs wikification (hence my tag). --Rory096_(block) 04:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article definitly needs work but it is notable. SorryGuy 06:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: there are many large corporations with CFOs, they go through them at a fast rate and they usually have little impact on society. Also, if comparable historic positions are counted, there are probably tens of thousands of similar people (think of all of the executives that old and now defunct companies would have had throughout history). -- Kjkolb 07:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Sillysailor, the article creator and principal maintainer, told me, "I was assigned by Expedia, my employer, to gather publicity for the announement of this new CFO."[1] I believe this speaks to the non-notability of the subject but you are free to use this information to arrive at your own conclusion. GT 08:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't say anything about notability, per se, just that the contribution was out of commercial interest. If Bill Gates hires someone (perhaps via WP:HIRE?) to add content onto an article about him, that doesn't make it non-notable, it just raises an POV flag. Notability is determined by the subject, not the author. Good information to know, though. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 08:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

By that I meant, if Bill Gates was really notable someone outside the company would create and/or add to the article long before someone at his company had to for "publicity" reasons. Obviously that was the case (presumably) with Gates but not here. Indeed most CFO's don't have much if any impact outside the their company, let alone future CFO's, and it probably would take a financial motivation to get someone to spend this much time to write an article for one who has no other notable (or notorious) characteristics. GT 09:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as above. POV needs work and the article has a whole lot of other problems, but notability isn't one of them. Morgan Wick 09:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per GT below. Morgan Wick 00:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep . Wikified and cleaned up slightly also. Rockpocket 21:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm still waiting for the first defense of the subject's notability. Sloppy and/or POV writing was not why I nominated this page. GT 03:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "CFO of a major company" isn't notable enough? Morgan Wick 03:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • By itself, no. What does a CFO do that is significant to anyone who is not either personally involved with or has a financial interest (or disinterest) in the company? I could see if Expedia was a giant mega-corporation whose operations have a great impact on the rest of society but that's hardly the case. Even putting aside the fact that he hasn't started his job yet, redlinks Mark Gunning and Gregory Stanger who previously held his position don't seem to have ever been involved with anything so significant that someone thought to write an article about them, which is why I find it relevant that this article was only ever written because an Expedia employee was told to do it for publicity reasons. GT 04:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or failing that merge to Expedia. Fortune-telling; not the most notable person with that name; stylistic problems; mostly that it doesn't say much other than Expedia has a CFO, who isn't this person, and the person he's taking over from, Mark Gunning, who could at least be reported on, doesn't have an article. Time will tell if either becomes notable. --Cedders 20:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I promised the article creator Sillysailor, who is currently blocked, that I would post his/her supporting justification for the article so here it is: "Micahel Adler is notable in the sense that he is in BusinessWeek because of this takeover. If it is good enough news for BusinessWeek, it should be good enough for Wikipedia, especially seeing as BusinessWeek is much more selective." (from here) GT 05:02, 25 April 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.