Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Wilton Parr


 * 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Gary Wilton Parr

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No sources in article to back up meeting WP:BIO. Gsearch doesn't show notability in first 50+ ghits -- closest to notability is a small mention in a FT article and a passing mention in another business article. A7 Speedy was declined, so I assume a prod will be contested. Fabrictramp 23:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet WP:BIO --UnleashTheWolves 00:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep An article that is simply a resume. However, there is an assertation of notability (of sort) and some ghits on Google News (Financial Times, New York Times, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg) to indicate notability. I favour keep and doing further editorial work on this before making a decision on deletion. --Malcolmxl5 00:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - Well my line of thinking was that as a "deputy chairman" he's not really "notable" as per WP:BIO is he? I mean, ok he's a businessman, and there's some business articles where he's mentioned, but does that really make him note worthy?? --UnleashTheWolves 01:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply That's fair enough, UnleashTheWolves. We have slightly different viewpoints: yours is that he is not notable per WP:BIO while mine is, well, he is mentioned in some heavyweight publications, let's do a little more work on this before deciding to delete. Let's see what other people think, I'm happy to go with the consensus. --Malcolmxl5 02:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Any editing in lieu of deletion must emphasize the issue(s) for which the subject is notable for.  Keep in mind of what wikipedia is not (see What Wikipedia is not.  Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right.)   This does not mean Mr. Parr is not suited for Wikinews.  If an editor is capable of proving this subject's notability I'm in favor of a keep.  However, in order to satisfy WP:BIO standards the editor will need to cite those secondary news sources that establish an historicaly significant context.  If Mr. Parr is notable as a "deputy chairman" than Bloomberg, WSJ, etc, would offer implicit reasons explaining why.  Did he revolutionize "sell side" practice somehow, for example, as a Dean G. Witter?  Was he involved in an historic SEC investigation, such as Ivan Boesky?  Or is he even a pseudo-celebrity fixture in in the I-banking community, like John J. Mack?  I'm very tempted to vote in favor of a Delete based on my thoguht that he's simply a NN.  Malcolmxl5  were you suggesting the article be reworked, or were you also implying that you'd be willing to do the rewriting?    True theory 17:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  J ONATHAN  Go green ! 03:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete
 * Keep I do not know what reasons the two above !voters may have had. But I see the articles in major international financial newspapers that consider his appointment to the present position worthy of coverage --and even a quotation, and I accept their definition of notability in the subject. DGG (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - most of the sources linked above only mention him in passing, but it seems to me there's just about enough out there to satisfy WP:RS. The article obviously needs improvement, though. Terraxos 18:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - looks like it should stay but be improved. DiegoGirl 19:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. per nom.  nn.  see my reply above.  True theory 17:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just because the article is poorly written is no justification to delete. Parr is an influential person who holds powerful positions. The article needs a lot of work. Kingturtle 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and Malcolmxl5. John254 01:37, 15 November 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.