Talk:Thomas J. Dolan (executive)

A random IBM executive is not notable. Recommend deletion. Scottjduffy (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What does this guy actually do at IBM? Who are the customers his division deals with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.238.90.84 (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Support deletion of the article.
His wife, the public official (Carmen Ortiz), and the article on Aaron Swartz should cover these issues sufficiently. LeProf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.244.80 (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The only notable thing he did seems to be his tweet on Aaron Swartz, and more detail is provided on the Aaron Swartz article than this one.069952497a (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that the AfD for this article is located here.] --Super Goku V (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose deletion of the article.
Deletion would serve Dolan's purpose. He has publicly defamed the family of Aaron Swartz without mentioning that he is married to a person accused of contributing to Swartz's death. His publicly presented version of the prosecution's offer differs from that presented by the Guardian. It could be construed that he wishes to be perceived as a concerned citizen rather than a self-interested party. It would not surprise me if he were to join in this talk page, anonymously, to say that the Wikipedia entry serves no purpose. To me, the Wikipedia entry is a crucial link between any public comments made by Dolan and his self-interest in absolving his wife from investigation and prosecution. To delete the entry leaves evidence of the connection to the mercy of privately-owned search engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.185.63 (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for agendas or vendettas against individuals. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * IP-- no need for paranoia.  Although Dolan was reported to be CFO of IBM, turns out he was a CFO, and then an IBM employee.   That makes it a much grayer case.  No need to question the good faith of people arguing for deletion.  BLP1E does exist for a reason, this may be it. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Completely irrelevant. Speculating on Dolan's "purpose" does not make him any more or less notable. In addition, Dolan's public comments are sufficiently covered in the Aaron Swartz article.069952497a (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that the AfD for this article is located [|here.] --Super Goku V (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

By having his Twitter feed reported in the press, Dolan has injected himself, or has been injected if you prefer, into the debate surrounding the issues of the Aaron Swartz case. Reporting his Twitter comments, and the subsequent deletion of his account simply documents his involvement in the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pchas (talk • contribs) 17:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)