Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Mitchell

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 KPMG. slakr^\ talk / 04:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Mitchell

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

seems to be a lack of independent sources - vast majority information is corporate promotional stuff from kpmg, tagged for notability since September 2012 _nonsense ferret 15:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably merge There's a short passage in The History of the German Public Accounting Profession by Hugh Brian Markus p299[1]. But not much else online that I can see. Maybe someone has other offline sources (I'm sure there must be a rich history of fascinating accountancy periodicals and books). But some info could be added to KPMG#History about Marwick Mitchell & Co and its founders (it's not clear that MM&Co is particularly notable either except for its place in the history of KPMG). --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. As one the founders of a firm that now employs 152,000 people he is obviously notable. I have no association with this firm whatsoever but am amazed that anyone could suggest that he is not notable. By extension that effectively rules out all biographies of accountants from wiki (as he is one of the most notable) and for that matter all lawyers. Is it only politicians and celebrities that are notable? Dormskirk (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

as you well know, it's people for whom we can point to multiple examples of independent significant coverage in reliable sources that are notable. If you have such coverage, by all means provide it. Wasn't it in fact the case that he was a co-founder of a firm that was merged with another firm that was then merged with another firm? Not quite the same as the claim you are making I feel. It is worth also clarifying that this isn't a single firm that employs 152,000 people either - it is a loose association of different member firms in different countries with separate legal entities - by implication you are saying that every single founder in the hundreds of firms joining that association or was ever merged to a firm that merged to another firm that joined that association should be notable - a little extensive I would suggest. --_nonsense ferret 22:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that he is the Mitchell from Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co. which evolved into KPMG (rather than a co-founder of a firm that was merged with another firm that was then merged with another firm) so he was really quite important to the history of that profession. Dormskirk (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His importance to the accountancy industry as a whole would surely be demonstrated by an ample supply of independent sources providing significant coverage which nobody has provided despite the article being tagged for notability issues since September 2012. Bearing in mind that he was not ever a member of the KPMG firm, which was formed of a merger of Peat Marwick McClintock and several other firms - perhaps you can see my point from this diagram diagram from the icaew showing the very numerous firms - your argument seems to be suggesting in the absence of significant coverage that every founding partner of every firm in the diagram has some automatic notability due to Peat Marwick McLintock going on to form part of KPMG?. --_nonsense ferret 01:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Your diagram is very helpful. It shows that from 1925 to 1987 (over 60 years) the firm that evolved into KPMG was known as Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co. To be clear I am only arguing that Klijnveld, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Goerdeler (and possibly McLintock) are notable. By the way I have just googled Peat Marck Mitchell and got over 76,000 hits. Dormskirk (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely arbitrary. Will all those

WP:GHITS I shall look forward to seeing some references to examples of significant independent coverage from reliable sources. --_nonsense ferret 22:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

OK. How about Hoovers? They mention Roger Mitchell in the second line. Dormskirk (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you contending that passing mention meets the depth of coverage required to establish notability per

WP:BASIC --_nonsense ferret 22:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I made my reasons very clear from the start of this. As one the founders of a firm that now employs 152,000 people he is obviously notable. And I have demonstated that he was one of the founders (after all his name appeared in the name of the firm for over 60 years). Dormskirk (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

call me a stickler for the rules, but I much prefer claims to notability that are based on guidelines and independent significant coverage, rather than just 'obvious' --_nonsense ferret 15:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a summary to KPMG#History. The present firm is certainly notable, but that does not mean that the predecessors, whose names happen to have survived are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and in fact, to be clear, his wasn't one of the names that survived. The M of KPMG is Marwick. --_nonsense ferret 15:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True. But the fact remains that for 60 years the main firm that evolved into KPMG was known as Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co. and readers might well wonder who Mitchell was. Dormskirk (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Peterkingiron. Nonsenseferret and Dormskirk make good points, but Mitchell's contribution to PMM&Co. and then KPMG can be summarized within the history section of the firm's article, and Mitchell doesn't seem to be notable for any other reason. Ivanvector (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2014 (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.