Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Adler (2nd nomination)

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 No consensus. Prodego ^talk 18:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Adler

I previously nominated this article for deletion but this is probably such a low-trafficked article that I will go ahead and do it again. The previous AfD failed on account of people believing that as the chief financial officer of Expedia, he is inherently notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If that were true, you'd expect the CFO's of much larger companies such as Coca Cola (Gary Fayard [1]), IBM (Mark Loughridge [2]), and General Motors, Corp. (Frederick Henderson [3]) to have their own articles as well. (I am not cherry picking here; I just looked up the CFO's of the first three giant corporations I thought of). Evidently while the CFO is a tremendously influential and important person within a company, he is generally not of individual notability outside of it unless there are special circumstances that make the person notable, which does not appear to be the case with Mr. Adler.

We do have a few other articles for the CFO's of some other companies, but as far as I'm concerned those articles should be candidates for deletion as well. I'd prefer this AfD discussion to center around why a person holding the position of CFO merits mention in an encyclopedia above and beyond a listing on the company's page.

Finally, for what it's worth, I will note that the creator of this article claims to have been assigned the task of writing the article by his employer when Mr. Adler was announced as the new incoming CFO. — GT 00:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to list this on the main AfD page, so the closing admin should consider the beginning time to be as of this timestamp, not the one above. — GT 01:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:SPAM then. Wikipedia is not Expedia's press agent. --DarkAudit 01:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom.ThuranX 02:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Expedia Dlyons493 Talk 02:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Previous AfD ended on a no-consensus, and my final vote was delete there as well. Lack of improvements nudge me a bit further in the delete direction as well. Morgan Wick 02:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. There are so many CFOs, they get replaced so often and they have so little impact outside of their company that it is pointless to have an article on someone whose only claim to fame is being one. -- Kjkolb 04:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a
talk. ^_^ 09:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per the arguments and outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Adler. The fact that the creator of this article was encouraged to do so at the request of his employer does not sway my opinion on this. Yamaguchi先生 23:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with yamaguchi, the fact his company required him to have an article does not make him any less important of a person. ALKIVAR™ 02:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't nominate this article for deletion based on that. Please address my actual points. Thanks! — GT 04:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and disambiguate between the film and television actor (son of Warren Adler) [4] and the Expedia CFO, both of whom receive ample search traffic on Google and Lexis-Nexis. RFerreira 18:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to us why a CFO is worthy of an entry in an encyclopedia above and beyond a mention in the company's own article, and without using vague and unsubstantiated claims like "ample search traffic". Thanks! — GT 19:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep please and disambiguate per rferreira makes the most sense Yuckfoo 16:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a vote. Can you explain your position, as this is supposed to be a discussion to reach a consensus? — GT 20:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on him:

Holding his position for a relatively short time
Not having a profound impact on the company or society

I see this article as

crystal balling and vanity more than anything else mentioned. While it is a powerful position to hold, CFOs who haven't gained significant fame/notoriety or held their positions for a spectacular amount of time don't merit articles.--Wafulz 17:40, 13 August 2006 (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.