Talk:Brian Acton

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Computing: Software Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Computer Security (assessed as Low-importance). Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with: edit history watch purge AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information... Answer question about Same-origin_policy Review importance and quality of existing articles Identify categories related to Computer Security Tag related articles Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests) Identify articles for improvement Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc. Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 February 2014. The result of the discussion was nominator withdrawn.

This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... (your reason here) --217.31.4.43 (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --195.212.199.56 (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be improved but you need to keep in perspective it very weird to claim the founder and CEO of a $16 billion dollar company is

not notable. -- 109.78.205.45 (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't worry, the article will not be speedy deleted, the nominator was wrong here. Note that the article needs to get a

Fram (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

It is actually not that weird to say the CEO is not notable. In fact, if you look closely you'll see almost no CEO's have wikipedia pages... simply being CEO of a large company doesn't make you notable. Now, maybe they get involved in lots of other notable things, in which case the combination makes them notable. But just being rich, or the CEO of a big company, doesn't automatically qualify you.—Mrand ^{Talk • C} 19:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not having pages doesn't equal not being notable. The (co-)founders of large companies ate almost always notable. The later CEOs less so. A company worth billions of dollars is a large company, even if the price is "somewhat" inflated.

Fram (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm afraid I don't agree. Why would this be true "(co-)founders of large companies are almost always notable"? There are tons and tons of people who founded companies, acquired by even larger companies, who have nothing more to their name than the fact that founded the company and sold it. Just go study the list of acquisitions for any of the larger companies. In the cases where you find wikipedia pages about the founder, it was because they have MULTIPLE things going for them (i.e., multiple articles written about multiple subjects... not just the articles about the story of them founding [and selling] one company).—Mrand ^{Talk • C} 16:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page states it was sold for 16 billion dollars while most other sources state it was 19 billion. Which is it?

Irbananaking (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better sources say $16 billion. Lesser news sources go with the inflated total of $19. Facebook says $16 in their statement. There is an addition $3 billion in share options, it's more accurate but less simple to say $16 billion and explain the extras. -- 147.252.95.107 (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that WhatsApp was sold to Meta, which is not true. Meta did not exist in 2014. WhatsApp was sold to Facebook. Can someone please correct this? So that the link says Facebook in the article – and points to Meta?

not yet sufficient refs for a separate article DGG ( talk ) 08:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tumblr inline n19k9vpY8G1qzzumw.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exact date of birth is needed.--109.252.100.73 (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it doesn't seem so important. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although the info about Koum is important, the focus of the section should be on Acton, not Koum. I recommend revamping the section so that the info about Koum is referenced but the focus is on Acton. ReveurGAM (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]