Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Lamb

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 merge to IMI plc. WP:OUTCOMES is "common outcomes" not "guaranteed outcomes", and besides that, it is an essay, not a guideline or policy. There appears to be no verifiable information about Mr. Lamb beyond his date of birth and employment, which means he is insufficiently notable per WP:BIO. —Darkwind (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Lamb

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only two references on the article simply state that this person exists and do not offer any notability. I originally requested this be deleted via WP:PROD which was disputed with a claim that he is notable simply because of his position in his company. It is hard for me to believe that this wiki offers blanket auto-exemptions for allowing a page to exist with a lack of reliable resources, especially in regards to the biography of a living person. Technical 13 (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looking at the article it is easy to see why this nomination has been made. How can one be inherently notable simply because one is a CEO of a large corporation? Surely one must have some genuine inherent notability for one's self? Having asked those questions I have tilted against enough windmills of declared inherent notability to know how this is likely to be closed. I am, for the moment, neutral. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now had further time to comnsider. Per AllyD below and per nom, plus my own considerations that a person is not inherently notable because their job is notable, I opt to Delete this article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – To IMI plc. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The comments above and from the edit summary indicate a reluctant view that the subject may attain an inherent notability by virtue of his job. However having sought and added a couple of references, I am not finding anything substantially better than passing quotations relative to his job; generally we would say that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. It seems to me that the available sources fall short of WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Happy to revise that view if anything that clearly meets these criteria is located. AllyD (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to IMI plc. Not independently notable, and doesn't seem to be much to say about him. Within the context of a company article, a CEO who's been in place for over 10 years (plus providing other services to the company) deserves a mention, but he's not inherently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Chief executives of FTSE 100 companies seem to me to be inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Necrothesp states, FTSE 100 CEOs are inherently notable. There seems to be well-established WP policy for this:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Business_people_and_executives. IMI plc is a company with a £2 billion turnover and a £4 billion market capitalisation, and Martin Lamb has been CEO for 12 years. With a few exceptions, all FTSE 100 CEOs have articles. Yes, he does seem to have a relatively low profile, probably because IMI is a specialist engineering company that is not widely known as far as the general public are concerned, but he is sufficiently notable. Edwardx (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that is an essay, only, and has no status save as formalised opinion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to the merge/redirect idea. Notability requires verifiable evidence and notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities says enough to me to know he should not have his own page (at least not yet). Technical 13 (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.