Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Smith (executive)


 * 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. HighKing's last comment sums up the general trend in consensus well. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Benjamin Smith (executive)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

References are routine announcements. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO.  scope_creep Talk  13:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep – there are a few primary sources, but also 3 or 4 that satisfy WP:GNG, so it should stay. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Kokopelli7309, which 3 or 4 sources satisfy WP:GNG? TSventon (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought that the first five all seemed to comply (maybe Bloomberg is a little bit dubious, but the others are solid). Kokopelli7309 (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I came to this via Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. I can only find one in-depth, reliable and independent source in the first five. There may be better sources available, but it is hard to find them as there is also a lot of routine coverage.
 * Reuters.com: not in-depth
 * ParisMatch.fr: looks good
 * Forbes.com: interview so not independent
 * TravelPulse: possibly press release so not independent
 * Bloomberg.com: "these profiles should not be used to establish notability" per WP:RSP. TSventon (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 02:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ~  Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 02:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Is there anything in particular which is causing doubt or needs additional citation? For example, Reuters cites that he was named AFKM CEO and came from Air Canada - even if not in-depth, those are fairly objective facts. I've added a couple other sources, which should helpfully help, too.  What's missing to close this discussion and keep the page up? Ben.lipsey (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Ben.lipsey Wikipedia has various policies on which subjects need articles, the most relevant is the Notability (GNG), that "A topic is to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received  in  that are ". Click the links for further detail. The idea is to write articles based on independent sources, not information published by individuals or their employers. So what is needed is at least another two sources like Paris Match above. Also you should disclose your conflict of interest, Special:Diff/1019448972, when contributing to discussions. TSventon (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly notable as CEO of a very major company. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What about the lack of sources? So far there is only one source that is not an announcement.    scope_creep Talk  18:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep as per references found by TSventon. Delete Being the CEO of a major company does not automatically confer notability. WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME is neither policy nor guideline. I cannot find any references that meets the criteria for notability.  HighKing++ 21:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I added more sources, including in depth articles that I found such as Skift, Simple Flying, and from major (French) publications like Le Monde, Le Point, Les Echos, and Europe 1. Hopefully this adds some more independently-verified sources. (For the record I work at AFKL so there is an [unpaid] COI, which I have disclosed on my user page, but all these articles are/were publicly available and extensively researched.) Ben.lipsey (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Those references are cack and you shouldn't edit an article when you have a COI during AFD. Three references are routine announcements of the new position, the same news that was in the article already and the other one is puff piece, no more than a profile. No one is saying there aren't articles about him. It is the quality and where they are suitable to prove WP:BIO.   scope_creep Talk  16:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * OK not sure I understand then, still getting used to this. There was a request for more sources and I added a few more. Skift, Simple Flying, and the French newspaper articles are all in depth and quite extensive (and from what I can tell, they were also published in print).Ben.lipsey (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * From an external viewpoint, you seem to be here to fudge the Afd. You have declared a COI, so have the good grace to stay away, while the article is being discussed.   scope_creep Talk  16:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Further sources added by Ben.lipsey in case anyone else wants to check them: Europe1.fr, Le Monde, Le Point, Les Echos, Skift. TSventon (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record I’m not trying to fudge anything. It was suggested by two other users to come and contribute to this discussion, and I was only trying to respond to others who said the sources were not in-depth/independent enough - that’s it, nothing more. But I’ll stop here. Ben.lipsey (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable as CEO of a very major company per Necrothesp. I believe that GNG is met by the Paris Match reference, a Les Echos (France) reference covering his career to 2018 in the fr article, and a Financial Times article about his performance in 2019. I am still concerned that the article has mostly been edited by single purpose accounts as discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. TSventon (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC) Sources wikilinked. TSventon (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets the WP:THREE standard per TSventon above. feminist (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Pinging scope creep, HighKing, please can you comment on the sources I identified on 1 May. TSventon (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Paris Match is a good reference, the 2nd one is profiley type thing, it is like a mini CV listing, the third one I can't see, but assuming AGF, it is likely to be about his financial performance, in a trade paper that has a duty to report on financial news.   scope_creep Talk  11:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia notability criteria, there is no policy based argument that says that if a person is in charge of a large company, they are automatically notable.   scope_creep Talk  14:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For comparison the Paris Match reference is around 1050 words, the Les Echos reference is around 650 and the FT references is around 1150. I believe that they are all "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The FT and Les Echos are business papers but that does not mean that they are not reliable sources or can't provide evidence of notability. The FT article covers Smith's performance in 2019, especially in union negotiations, but also mentions profit targets and fleet renewal. It may be possible to access it by searching for the headline rather than clicking on the link. TSventon (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For me, although there are a lot of similarities between the LesEchos and ParisMatch articles which suggests that the company produced a profile pack for the press, having reviewed closely I'm happy that there is also a sufficient quantity and quality of independent commentary on Smith in both and also in the FT article. I've changed my !vote to Keep. Thank you for finding and providing those refs.  HighKing++ 20:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.