Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clark Manning


 * 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   no consensus. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 05:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Clark Manning

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability.

Note: My proposal for speedy deletion as CSD A7 ("an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject") was reverted with an edit summery of "rm Speedy deletion request with false statement of purpose. Real reason appears to be to remove the infobox". That claim is bogus. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Related AFDs, with similar nomination assertions, and prod removals, involving direct calls to infobox are:
 * Articles for deletion/Boss of the Pool, Australian play
 * Articles for deletion/Boy Overboard, Australian play
 * Articles for deletion/Clark Manning
 * Articles for deletion/Lord Abbett (closed keep)
 * -- do ncr  am  04:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Two of the four articles listed in the above canvassing use infobox book. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes the two Australian play articles use infobox book; Pigsonthewing's way to them was via another article by same creator that used infobox, as I already noted at their AFDs (and Pigsonthewing does not disagree).  Please discuss accusations of canvassing (I disagree), at Pigsonthewing's similar accusation at my Talk page. -- do  ncr  am  15:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I found these references The Guardian, Business Wire, Business Week, Forbes, and The Telegraph. Meets WP:GNG. Article does need work but article content doesn't determine notability. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:ONEEVENT. Forbes and a couple other similar profiles notwithstanding, I've not found any coverage that's not about his leaving Prudential. Alakzi (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lady Lotus. Even though the article needs expansion, it definitely meets WP:GNG, as illustrated by the subject's references in secondary sources. These references should be incorporated into the article to clean it up. BenLinus  1214 talk 01:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing GNG. All there is really is an announcement that he was stepping down as CEO of Jackson National Life. The same announcement in three different publications doesn't somehow add to the notability. There's not enough to construct an article. Also, I strongly suspect from prior experience that Forbes bios are submitted by people related to the subject, and are therefore useless as sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Note the article appears to be targeted for its using Infobox. The deletion nomination shows no evidence of performing wp:BEFORE;  the nom spends more time/text complaining about removal of the prod, which was by me.  It's not "bogus" to point out the apparent purpose of removing infoboxes the nom does not like.  The nom was indeed working from this worklist of articles having "direct calls" to infobox template.  I note related AFDs above.


 * Clark Manning is apparently also known as Clark Preston Manning, or Clark P. Manning, Jr., so try also:
 * There's this more recent Bloomberg profile about him
 * He is this person, with birth and wife info], consistent with age in that profile.
 * There is (yep i typed that correctly, also available by Googling "Record of Society of Actuaries Clark Manning" ), a 20 page publication he wrote based on a panel discussion that he moderated, on valuation law changing.  Probably more activity among actuaries.
 * Though I don't feel hugely strongly about it, I think keeping and developing is best. Focusing a lot of editor attention on an article because it uses a certain infobox seems crazy. -- do  ncr  am  04:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that you need to be reminded that you were warned "not to approach discussions confrontatively [sic]... not to comment on contributors rather than content, and not to assume bad faith."; and that User:Gatoclass similarly told you: ""you are hereby reminded that comments on contributor rather than content may result in the imposition of sanctions". Yet you continue, despite being told otherwise, repeatedly to falsely assert that I have motives which are alien to me. Your posting about this nomination at other nominations, and vice versa, also consitutes canvassing, about which you have also been previously warned. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please discuss accusations of canvassing and other (I disagree), at Pigsonthewing's similar accusation at my Talk page. -- do ncr  am  15:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This 2002 profile of Clark P. Manning, Jr., at his appointment to CEO of Jackson and to board of Prudential provides details of his education, involvement in actuarial science, and more. It's a PR newswire item, so I don't mean it establishes notability independently, but it is reliable for facts to include in the article.  The "Clark P. Manning, Jr." name is what appears in SEC filings and legal documents, in the searches.
 * Also, listed as Clark Preston Manning, he was Sr. Vice President at Sunamerica, Inc., life insurance company based in NYC, according to Dun & Bradstreet's Million Dollar Profile Google book snippet here.
 * I think the sources provided by editor Lady Lotus and these are adding up to substantial coverage, although I acknowledge others can disagree. It's definitely not "one event" coverage, though, and i think it adds up.  I'll add some to the article next. -- do  ncr  am  16:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless someone manages to provide reliable independent sources that aren't about his departure from Jackson National/Prudential, it definitely is ONEEVENT coverage. His name appearing in some list and an announcement by the company that's hired him do not contribute towards notability. Alakzi (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the sources provided by editor Lady Lotus and these are adding up to substantial coverage, although I acknowledge others can disagree. It's definitely not "one event" coverage, though, and i think it adds up.  I'll add some to the article next. -- do  ncr  am  16:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless someone manages to provide reliable independent sources that aren't about his departure from Jackson National/Prudential, it definitely is ONEEVENT coverage. His name appearing in some list and an announcement by the company that's hired him do not contribute towards notability. Alakzi (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: expanded article I have added quite a bit to the article, bringing it from 3 sentences to more than 2,100 words by that diff. (And have added more since, see current article.) More than 5X expansion, DYK-eligible.  It's slow going, as the related financial services articles are lacking.  I've had to edit at Prudential Financial, Prudential Securities Incorporated, American Academy of Actuaries, Milliman & Robertson, Inc., and other articles.  Currently the article shows redlinks for PPM America, Inc. and Chief Actuary which are needed articles which should provide some context/support for links from the Clark Manning article;  I will start articles for those at Draft:PPM America, Inc. and Draft:Chief Actuary, shortly.  And have more to add to the Clark Manning article.  Help expanding is welcome.
 * There is under-coverage in Wikipedia of actuaries (see Category:Actuaries) and other corporate executives, maybe especially in financial industries. The importance of Clark Manning, like for CEOs and other corporate executives, is related to the importance and size of the companies they run.  It's not "irrelevant" (as one edit summary at the article asserted) to describe size of those companies in their articles. It's not a terrible thing to develop financial company topics and executive role topics more.  I am surprised there is no article about PPM America and that there is no article about Chief Actuary, which is a major title like CEO and COO, though obviously more salient in insurance and pension industries than elsewhere.  Again, i voted Keep above, think that the article is in better/good shape, and there is more development possible, and sources have emerged and are still emerging. -- do  ncr  am  19:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the sources are still crap. You don't seriously think a press release is a reliable, independent reference, do you? A single glimpse of his name in Million Dollar Directory listing, an article he wrote, Bloomberg and Forbes profiles written by whom? None of these actually discuss his accomplishments. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't hold back! I don't really mind, but that's a bit unfair.  I said above that PRnewswire source is not independent, doesn't go towards establishing article notability.  But it does provide useful material for the article.  BTW, I see Manning name in PPM America documents, and hope to find usable info for here, as I start/develop a PPM America article.  You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think the article is sources are "crap";  i think it is the sources are not great, but okay. -- do  ncr  am  18:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (watching) I didn't look at the article yet, but find strange that you were told "the sources are crap" and seem to understand "the article is crap". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, revised my comment by strikeout and inserted words. -- do ncr  am  19:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Weak Keep or delete, Was able to find some pretty good sources. Some seemed like press releases though. (Business Wire) Cec2020 (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2015 (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.