Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon Stewart


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Stewart

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Being a company chairman or on the board of AMCHAM is not of itself sufficient to meet the notability guidelines. Searching Google News reveals no matches for '"Gordon Stewart" American Chamber of Commerce'. The references included confirm job roles with nothing to demonstrate significant impact. A speedy has been removed, so I am raising for further discussion. Fæ (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions.  -- Fæ (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.  -- Fæ (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- Fæ (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Being the chairman of a major company is notability, and the position of head of the american CC is a major commercial center is recognition of it. DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Having a particular job title is not automatically notable (even if the job itself is), is there a pre-existing policy that applies in the case of senior corporate BLPs? Fæ (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks references to establish notability. Few market research firms are particularly big, and they're not the kind of industry where heads of regional branches are people of particular notability outside the firm. Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete without better sourcing. Corporate leaders are not notable just by virtue of being the biggest fish (or not) in their particular pond. Hairhorn (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. If he were a big fish in a big pond, then maybe he would have an article. If he were a big fish in a little pond, then maybe he would have a redirect. There is current no pond for this fish. Location (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't add a drop of water to the knowledge pool. Carrite (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reads like a resume.-- &#x03C6; OnePt618Talk &#x03C6; —Preceding undated comment added 04:07, 6 June 2010 (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.