Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles E. Swanson


 * 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 Delete - no reliable sources; fails WP:BIO, subject is simply a retired executive. - Krakatoa  Katie  23:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Charles E. Swanson

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

We do not, as a rule, have articles on people because they were merely the executive of another notable article. This person does not appear to be notable, and indeed, given the complete lack of references, how could we possibly counter that initial impression? DevAlt 21:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. Bramlet Abercrombie 23:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. DevAlt 23:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC) (no, it's not helpful to the discussion, is it?)
 * Daelete as nn. Notice that the preceding and following presidents of Encyclopaedia Britannica have no articles. Get the message? Clarityfiend 00:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 02:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 02:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Shows no signs of passing WP:BIO: not the subject of a bio or of multiple press pieces, and I don't think the encyclopedia itself counts as his personal contribution. —David Eppstein 03:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, Google news archive results indicate there is room for expansion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayvdb (talk • contribs)
 * Delete, as notability is not inherited, unless the article can be better sourced, as per Jayvdb. Ford MF 09:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No Reliable sources have done biographies or biographical articles on this person.Piperdown 14:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, referring to the first two !votes, when has just stating an article's notability ever supported a !vote? Seems like this to me... *Cremepuff  222*  19:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That was somewhat my point. DevAlt 19:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Publisher of a very major publication is notable, even if it weren't one of our rivals. Agreed, not every publisher,but this one counts. That previous and later one's arent linked just means that we still have a way to go. DGG 02:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral (Weak Keep or Delete without prejudice against recreation) -- Long time president of a major publication. EB does not have an article on him, but that does not mean that we cannot develop one (they do have one on other EB presidents).  The Atlantic, 1974 June has an article "Britannica 3, History Of" which at least references him, but it's not available by ProQuest, so I don't have access.  However, as it is, it doesn't say anything about his contributions to EB, so it's not a useful encyclopedia article.  -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. Indrian 20:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * delete a mention in the EB article should be enough. FredCups 21:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Am I missing something? What's the debate?  Are we going to list every former business executive here?  That he was president of Encyclopedia Britannica is cool but so what? -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 19:44, 14 June 2007 (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.