Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Liveras


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Andreas Liveras

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Andrea Liveras, sad as his death was at the hands of terrorists, would not have been suitable for an article in Wikipedia before this event, hence WP:BIO1E is relevant. Equally WP:NOTMEMORIAL is relevant. No disrespect is intended to those who mourn Mr Liveras in this nomination, nor to his memory. We are creating an encyclopaedia, not a memorial. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to November 2008 Mumbai attacks.--Boffob (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as clearly notable in life by wikipedia standards, the fact that a notable individual does not have an article is no reason to not have such an article. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep He's mentioned on a list of wealthiest people in the UK. Now arguably he's down pretty far on that list, but he's still listed; we also have articles on charting singles, regardless of their exact ranking in a chart. It's not our job to set arbitrary cut-off points when the people compiling the list already did that for us. I think wealth is one thing that can define notability, at least for business people. - Mgm|(talk) 15:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - and should not have been nominated per WP:BEFORE (as original article editor). Hard to believe people continue to misunderstand WP:N in this way. A successful business person, started three notable companies (two of the largest pastry producers in Europe) and was widely known.  Satisfies the notability hands down without the circumstances of his death.  The article is mostly about his life and gives due weight to his business accomplishments.Wikidemon (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This debate is nowhere near the level we saw for 'Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan'. Mr Liveras as a White person does not need to pass the test for "NOTABILITY". People here need not quote sources to justify their vote.  Varun
 * Keep Another pointless AfD nomination of someone who is clearly notable, regardless of the circumstances of their death. Just because he did not have an article before he died is irrelevant.  Our time would be better spent on creating useful content, rather than trying to save what has already been done. Edwardx (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly. Appears to be notable irrespective of his death. But the mediatic way in which he was killed, talking on the BBC seconds before dying, adds extra notability. Made front cover of most newspapers in UK. Tris2000 (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just because an article didn't exist before his death doesn't mean it shouldn't have. As mentioned he was already on the sunday times rich list, and his death made the front cover of almost every newspaper in the UK, for someone who is not notable that is a pretty astounding accomplishment. -- Lemming64 14:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep His means of death is the most notable aspect of his entry, but in aggregate with other factors he is notable.72.75.11.5 (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - 265th richest is pretty small fry, so fails WP:N and WP:BLP1E. -- Biruitorul Talk 15:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and what number is the cut off point? 90.197.220.134 (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1st is definitely notable; 265th is not. That's black-and-white. Where exactly black becomes grey and grey becomes white is not for us to decide in this venue. - Biruitorul Talk 21:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "265th is not" - says who? This is merely your opinion, and you cite no external validation.  As an example comparison, there are many more than 265 currently active UK-based footballers who have pages on WP.  I imagine that there has been some sort of WP consensus that they are all notable.  And business is clearly more generally important than football, and the simplest measure of an individual's success in business is wealth.  So, 265th should therefore be notable.  The Sunday Times list goes out to 500th, as I recall.  And it is a respected publication, so it would seem reasonable that at least the top 500 are notable. Edwardx (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Football is business. Perhaps 1000 should be a cutoff point being a nice clean number but 265th when we have no server space issues, I don't think so. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I say 100, Edwardx says 500, SqueakBox says 1000. All three are matters of opinion. Given that no consensus (itself an aggregate of various opinions) has been reached in the wider community on what constitutes notability for businessmen in particular (as opposed to people in general), all three are equally valid.
 * By the way: do you believe we should have articles on the 500 or 1000 richest people in every country on Earth? Because, at (let us say) 193 countries (UN members + Taiwan), that's 96,500 or 193,000 people, and could prove rather trivial as we go down the list -- for instance, the 868th richest person in Malawi or the 721st richest in Tuvalu (population 11000) will truly be rather small fry (which Mr Liveras was too, at least in comparison with his far wealthier co-nationals). - Biruitorul Talk 02:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the 721st richest person in Tuvalu receives coverage in a respected third party source such as the Sunday Times, then sure. :) 90.197.220.134 (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody said that the richest 500 in every country should be mentioned, the top 500 richest in the UK received notable third party coverage, making them notable. Where as the top 500 richest in Tuvalu have probably not received such coverage, so they are not notable. Tatarian (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can easily cover the richest people in the top economies of the world without any particular burden on the encyclopedia. Liveras got particular attention from the press because his life story is interesting (self-made immigrant businessman) and his field of business is food and luxury yachts, which generate a lot more interest than, say, mining or commodities trading.  The press eats this stuff up - it's not exactly movie stars, but people who create businesses get a lot of attention, for practical reasons (people want to do business) and more ideological ones (they are role models).  Covering the notable business leaders of each country is not a terrible burden.  This would probably exclude most who obtained their money as heirs, silent partners, investors, and such, so in practice maybe 200 per country X 10 top economies, or 2,000 entries.  There are far more than that who are notable in business without being so rich, of course, but that's a different story.  Anyway, the argument isn't that he should be covered because he is rich, but the fact that he became so rich in business is an explanation of why the sources have decided to cover his life.Wikidemon (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Wikidemon. Icewedge (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.