Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/André Calantzopoulos

: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. I am no big fan of IAR at all. However, I agree with DGG and cannot imagine that there would not be any good sources on the CEO of a company of this size (especially because it is in the not uncontroversial tobacco industry). Randykitty (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

===André Calantzopoulos===

:{{la|André Calantzopoulos}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andr%C3%A9_Calantzopoulos Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|André Calantzopoulos}})

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement." and I believe this is still valid. It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with he following rationale: "CEO of a very large company". The deprodding rationale seems invalid - why should CEOs be given a prod-immunity - but in either case, this seems like a vanity bio based on few passing mentions, and probably a job of a PR/paid-for editor. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. It seems to be that the CEO of a company as large and important as Philip Morris easily qualifies for an article on Wikipedia. Such people are clearly notable, in my opinion. We have to use common sense on Wikipedia, not just dogma. Some people are notable by virtue of who they are, whether or not they meet notability guidelines (although I'm pretty sure he does in any case). Other than one rather unctuous quote, I don't think the article is in any way vanity, and even if it was it's the individual's notability we assess when we decide whether an article should exist, not the quality of the existing article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • {{rto|Necrothesp}} Yes, we have to use common sense, but I don't see why CEOs of large companies should be automatically notable. This is not a business who-is-who-pedia. All biographies have to meet GNG/BIO guidelines; just as not every professor, scientists, or artist is notable, neither are all businesspeople. We don't seem to have any Wikipedia:Notability (businesspeople) guideline that would make exceptions here. You are more than welcome to start a draft on one, but until we reach consensus on it, I believe that it is only common sense that CEOs have to meet the same criteria as anyone else. Just landing a nice job is not enough. (For the record, I'd be willing to consider a notability criteria that CEOs of companies listed during their tenure in Fortunte TOP500 or such are automatically notable, but until such a policy becomes, well, policy, I look at such articles through GNG, and this one seems to fail it). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • You forget that we are not guided by strict rules on Wikipedia. The notability guidelines are just that - guidelines - and can be overruled by common sense. And to me, common sense dictates that the heads of companies as large as this one are notable by virtue of their post. Simple as. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • {{rto|Necrothesp}} While I agree with you that IAR is worth of remembering, in this case I don't see why CEOs of large companies should be special. They are just highly payed workers, but - just that, workers. Unless they do something extraordinary and get themselves notable, just getting a very well-paying job isn't, IMHO, enough to make them notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The point is not that they are workers but that by getting a post like this they have risen up their chosen profession to a very high level. They didn't just parachute into a job like that out of nowhere. Reaching the highest levels of one's profession, in my opinion, makes one notable. We give articles to singers with one relatively minor hit, to sportspeople who have competed once at international level, yet you don't think we should give articles to individuals who have reached the top of less glamorous professions. Where exactly is the common sense or logic in that? And how does that make Wikipedia a project to be taken seriously? Essentially by following your logic we are giving articles to people who get fans, but not to people who are acknowledged as leaders by their peers. The former haven't done anything "extraordinary" either; they just happen to be in jobs that get written about. They are no more notable; they just have more press coverage. That's why we should IAR (not that we have "rules" in the first place) if it's clearly better for the project to do so. I believe it is in instances such as this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • {{rto|Necrothesp}} Your arguments have merit, through I am not sure I am convinced by them. I would encourage you to start a Wikipedia:Notability (businesspeople) page. If it would pass, we could restore this article (if it is deleted) and have a clear guideline for the future related to similar entries. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete CEO is not automatically notable. Insufficient sources. (Mention in articles about the company as a CEO performing normal CEO duties is not enough.) LaMona (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Unable to find significant coverage independent of the subject of this BLP, does not appear to meet GNG or ANYBIO. J04n(talk page) 22:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • keep CEO of a famous company is notable, just like the head of any similar organization. Sources will be findable, and as long as there is verification, there is justification in keep ing such articles. A "CEO performing normal CEO duties" ACEO of a company this size performing the normal CEO duties of a company this size is notability. It would make just as much sense to delete articles on major league baseball players because they do nothign that is not expected of major league ball players. In other words, "just another Olympic athlete". just a can be applied to anything, not matter how notable or even famous. DGG ( talk ) 12:49, 26 November 2014 (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.