Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Miller (chairman)

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. Keep, slow speedy. No delete!votes and nom appears to agree that the BLPiE concern has been addressed. StarM 01:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Miller (chairman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable, barely a 1-hit CEO, not inherently notable. MBisanz ^talk 16:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree that based on the new facts added to the article, he is no longer a BLP1E. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Chair and CEO of AOL sounds notable to me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not really a one-hit, he's the current chief digital officer at NewsCorp (source). Should be enough from news sources alone to write a verifiable, neutral encyclopaedia article which is more than just a CV. Guest9999 (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as per above. Very notable person. Please note that the nominator closed this AfD on Jan 29 based on the thousands of article hits that an editor provided.[1] Ikip (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per everybody, ceos of companies like this are notable, and the refs are fully sufficient to show it. They were there at the time of nomination, though an "unreferenced" tag was also present--it had accidentally not been removed when the refs were added after the first nomination for deletion, (which is at [2]. ) I suppose the nom did not realize the article had been moved. I don;t think it was a good move, incidentally--we need to find a better qualifier. DGG (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Ikip. google news shows plenty of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. If this nomination is not in bad faith, then it is flagrantly indifferent to the notability of the subject and our guidelines. The article cites several independent reliable sources that cover the individual in detail. AfD is a reasonable venue for defining the contours of the notability guidelines, but not to wholly ignore them. Bongomatic 03:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Miller is both the CEO of a major company and he won a notable award. The award combined with the multiple available sources means he meets the WP:BIO inclusion criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the nom is false per Bongo, the wasted energy AfD'ing would be better spent improving articles. pohick (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was proven false in January, now I guess we have to go through all this again. Tavix |  Talk  21:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep per improvements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:56, 28 April 2009 (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.