Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Calello

Add links
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 keep. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Calello

[edit]
Paul Calello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a memorial, no notability that sets him apart from anyone else in a similar position Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. The article is not written as a tribute, so the (true) fact that Wikipedia is not a memorial is a specious argument. The encyclopedia contains many, many thousands of biographies of people no longer living. The subject of this article clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Bongomatic 01:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amended opinion to speedy keep after nominator's responses made it clear that the nomination is not based on guideline or policy. Bongomatic 08:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself does not point to notability, and was written only after his death. The article should actually show why the subject is notable, rather than having the reader search the sources.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that were correct, it would be a reason to improve, not delete the article. In the words of WP:ATD—which is policy—"if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." There are more comprehensive thoughts along these lines at WP:BEFORE.
  • Being chairman and CEO of a bulge bracket investment bank is in itself a claim (possibly rebuttable, but a claim no less) of notability. Bongomatic 01:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep easily meets the General Notability Guidelines. That he is dead is not relevant to the deletion discussion. --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bongomatic's point about a credible claim of notability is the key point, here - and there is no question that the claim is accurate (he was the CEO). We have lots of articles about the deceased, many written after their deaths. The rush of coverage on someone who has recently died frequently opens the door to further research into sources from their life - which forms what ends up being a reasonable article. Prominent obituaries in widely varied sources can also indicate notable subjects who don't already have an article - the deaths list frequently sees editors create articles for otherwise notable people, specifically to support the subject's entry on that list. If it expands our coverage with properly sourced articles on notable people, that's a win. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good arguments in general. However, in the instant case, the subject had attracted sufficient coverage (some included in the current version) prior to his death—indeed prior to his illness—to meet the relevant guidelines. Bongomatic 15:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - thus, the keep. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. The references here clearly indicate notability. Gobonobo T C 00:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "no notability that sets him apart from anyone in a similar position" as applied to people who are really important leads to some pretty odd statements, no more notable than other noble prize winners, than other best selling authors, than other olympic athletes, than other astronauts, that other winners of a grammy. It would limit is to who ever is the most notable of all Nobelists, the best of the US presidents, the best novelist in english, and so on. But I think the actual problem is the the failure to understand how people who engage in business are notable. The senior executives of the most important major companies are notable, but those who think this part of the world much less important than the other things we cover, do not tend to realize it. It's the field of our greatest negative subject bias. DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Obituaries from multiple major papers clearly establishes notability. The New York Times doesn't bother with obits for nobodies. -- Whpq (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - an Obit in the NYT says it all. Probably not eligible for WP:Speedy keep but I think WP:SNOWBALL is relevant here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In personally disregarding the merits of this article, it is obvious that only Bongomatic has worked on it. An experienced editor (100,000+ edits) nominates for deletion, and at least three others who voted "keep" are the same ones that voted "delete" along with Bongomatic at some previous recent afd's (including one I had an issue with recently). This is what I was refering to at a recent ANB incident. A borderline subject, but strength in numbers influences the afd outcome. Obvious quid pro quo? Or, is this again a conspiracy theory? WildHorsesPulled (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you ask, this is conspiracy theory. This is not a borderline subject. Of the eight editors that have opined "keep" as of this time, two (including me) opined in the same manner at the AfD to which you refer, one offered the opposite opinion, and the rest were uninvolved.
At less contentious AfDs with near unanimity, the fact that editors opine in the same way is wholly unremarkable (for example, you will note that the Herman Phaff AfD was unanimous other than the nominator). Most participants at AfD—with some obvious exceptions—don't use the forum as a place to express allegiance or personal grudges. Bongomatic 04:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will reply on my talk page. I apologize for making the comment hereWildHorsesPulled (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources, including coverage as a featured obituary in The New York Times. Subject clearly meets notability guidelines. Alansohn (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTMEMORIAL says Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Note the last part. Paul Calello meets our notability guidelines so we keep it. The fact that the article was created shortly after he died is irrelevant. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Economist has an obit that makes it clear that Calello was one of the "good bankers" in the credit-crunch crisis. I think this makes the case for at least a small bio in WP. I'm sure whoever wrote the article in The Economist would agree. AWhiteC (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Calello&oldid=1142243451"