Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Donohue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete. Further to the consensus reached through the discussion below, it is clear that the conclusion of this debate is that all three subjects have failed to assert their notability through the provision of reliable sources. This falls short of the minimal provisions of Wikipedia policy, and to this end I am closing as delete. AGK (contact) 21:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Donohue

Nancy Donohue (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

David Dechman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Miles Doherty (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Nancy Donohue article was created, tagged for speedy deletion and untagged all within the space of 18 minutes on 17 August 2007. Creator was Summit499, whose only other Wikipedia work has been to create David Dechman and Miles Doherty. Now, all three of these are officers of a firm called Summit Rock. All three articles were created on the same date and speedy tags for all three were removed by User:DGG. Despite DGG's edit comments in removing the speedy tags, none of the articles asserts a genuine notability beyond the position held in the company they are all members of. A Google search for Nancy Donohue, for example, turns up basic directory entries and a brief wedding notice from the New York Times, but no third party evidence of notability that I have been able to discern. (Ignore the actress with the same name.) These articles, to my mind, constitute a concerted effort to publicise a company and its directors, none of whom has any real notability that can be evidenced from reliable external sources. Note also that none of the external links - to major financial organisations - do anything to provide such evidence. Emeraude (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment My removing the speedy tag does not imply they were notable, just that there was a rational claim that should be tested by the community. Even the nom says there is a claim to notability based on their present company, but for some reason wants to establish notability outside of it. Rather, I think the notability of them will probably depend on how notable Summit Rock is, about which I have no opinion. Incidentally, Donohoe was VP of Harvard's $16 billion Investment Management Company, with a remarkable rate of return--that is a claim to notability, quite independent of her present role at Summit Rock. DGG (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Hope I didn't appear to suggest any impropriety on DGG's part - not my intention. My nomination though does not say 'there is a claim to notability based on their present company' - being leaders of their company is NOT notability unless the company is a major player AND they are responsible for it being such. I did say that I have found no evidence of notabilty in reliable third party sources. Otherwise, these articles are little short of spam. Emeraude (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Nancy Donohue and Miles Doherty; Neutral on David Dechman. My rationale for the deletion is that they are not notable in their own right, since the assertion of notability appears to rely purely on performing a private job at a private company (as distinct from, say, CEOs, etc.). My neutrality on David Dechman is simply that, whilst the big notability claim is his work with the same company, there is the possibility of greater notability depending on the extent of the charitable works described in the article - I'll look into it more and wait for more arguments on this article before possibly changing my view. - Fritzpoll (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2008 (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.