Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Hach


 * 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 of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Bob Hach
Originally tagged for speedy, but contested by the article creator with a mild assertion of notability. This, however, appears unclear, with no references and 0 relevant hits on Google.  Phædriel   ♥ tell me - 04:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * search Bob Hach Laidlaw on Google &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hachster (talk &bull; contribs).
 * 0 hits...  Phædriel   ♥ tell me - 04:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable despite author's claims. EdGl 04:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Try not putting quotes around it and you'll get links to the following sites about him among others: http://www.zoominfo.com/directory/Hach_Bob_314093.htm. There are also court documents that indicate him as the presdient and CEO of Laidlaw that can be found on google as well. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hachster (talk &bull; contribs).
 * (edit conflict) The string search you propose gives 4 relevant hits, including the one you provide. Better than none, but imho, not enough to establish notability enough to warrant an article.  Phædriel   ♥ tell me - 04:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I fail to see how running a bus company gives notability. --kingboyk 04:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well when its a Fortune 500 company, and the profitable portion of the company I think it is. You have other CEOS and Presidents on here, what makes running a bus company different than running say an accounting firm, or software firm.  He's accomplished a lot more than other folks on here such as pro wrestlers. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hachster (talk &bull; contribs).
 * Ahh, but pro wrestlers are more famous than bus-company CEOs. When this company becomes a Fortune 500 company, then you may write this article. EdGl 05:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment What is it about pro wrestlers lately that's making them the favored new-editor default standard for inclusion? (see here) Daniel Case 05:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well go ahead and check the 2005 Fortune 500 and you'll see Laidlaw International as #419 on the Fortune 500. So this its not a matter of when since it currently is a Fortune 500 company. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hachster (talk &bull; contribs).
 * Being the CEO of a Fortune 500 company and being the CEO of a subsidiary of a Fortune 500 company are two different things. EdGl 05:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well when you run the profitable division that keeps the company from disintegrating its worth noting &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hachster (talk &bull; contribs).
 * If the gentleman in question is CEO of a Fortune 500 company that might be a different matter. However, a) the article doesn't make such a claim, b) I'm neither American nor do I have intimate knowledge of who is on the F500 and who isn't it. If the article doesn't tell me how am I to know? Since other editors have stated he's not in that position anyway I guess it doesn't matter. --kingboyk 07:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: At the least, the information about The Deer Hunter is unverifiable via Google or IMDb, so I am boldly removing it. --Kinu 05:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well Kinu, I'm glad you're able to just use your resources of Google and IMDB to find information. Here's a better question for you.  If you're judging the information I'm submitting.  I think we need to verify your information of being a graduate of Economics from Yale University's Davenport College.  If that's the case, why are you doing technical support for Wikipedia.  Shouldn't you have a job doing economic research for a Wall Street firm.  I'd be hard pressed to see proof that you actually graduated form Yale with an economics degree
 * Please try to keep this discussion civil and relevant to the matter at hand. I have not personally attacked you by making the aforementioned edit; it was a judgment call based on the fact that the information was not readily verifiable.  We are more than open to a source that would verify this information, and if it is indeed true, it would be reinserted in the page and kept (assuming a lack of deletion per this discussion).  Again, I am not trying to bite, just explain.  And, as a show of good faith as to verifying information, here's my YaleStation profile. --Kinu 08:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well there are plenty of facts out there to prove the information. I'm sorry that it's all not Google accessible. Not all information is found on google. Plenty of Court documents and Mission statements from him are out there, sorry if they're not on google.
 * Delete, smells of non-notability. Royboycrashfan 10:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as the unsigned bitchy comments by the author carry no weight whatsoever except to diminish the quality of his character yet further. Oh, and the subject is 100% nn VanityCruft ++Deiz 12:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The author's comments further up this page notwithstanding, the biography as provided on the page under discussion doesn't assert the notable status of the subject. As such, it violates WP:BIO and should be deleted.  The author has such time until the discussion is closed to add verifiable information that raises the status of Mr Hach to notable.  If this is done, then I will reconsider my vote.   (aeropagitica)   13:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: per nom. And author needs to learn how to sign his/her comments.  Use ~ . —Wknight94 (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And with the outcome of this Afd very clear, I'll bite my toungue on responding to the ridiculous defense. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable Prodego  talk  14:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the sentiments voiced by Deiz. Eusebeus 18:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable --The Emperor of Wikipedia &amp; Protector of Wiktionary 21:42, 10 February 2006 (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.