Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murray D. Martin

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. JForget 00:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murray D. Martin

The latest in a series of CEO listings entries. Notable only for being a CEO, therefore not notable enough for a separate entry. Hairhorn (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Being head of a Fortune 500 company ought to be enough to prove notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable CEO of a major corporation. Plenty of information out there to expand the article. These are very notable and important people in contemporary life who have tremendous financial, political, business, and leadership influence. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Being a CEO of a fortune 500 company is notable by itself. The existence of reliable sources is gravy. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of those nominations that sometimes make me despair as to Wikipedia's future as a serious encyclopedia. I'm quite happy for a pop group that has come in at number 87 in the Billboard charts and a footballer who has played a couple of matches for Shrewsbury Town to have articles, but there should be some recognition that the notability of the CEO of a company with 36,000 employees is far greater than either of those examples. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just about all articles on Fortune 500 CEOs are currently basic stubs like this one -- even Jeff Immelt is fairly basic. That shouldn't be a mark against this article. This individual seems clearly notable... Phil Bridger put it well. --Crocodile Punter (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Clearly, consensus is against the nomination here, which is fine. My motivation for this AfD was that this person has no notability beyond their connection to the company they're leading, therefore, they don't merit their own entry, since there is already an entry for the company itself. This is - as far as I can tell - a principle of notability that is applied in other areas around here. Hairhorn (talk) 18:02, 8 August 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.