Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh "Skip" McGee III


 * 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. –MuZemike 02:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hugh "Skip" McGee III

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

limited reported notability, doubtful compliance with wiki WP:BIO, and not WP:NOTE  Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Looking at the article's history it is clear that the major content of the article regarded a complaint made by the subject to a school, and the subsequent gossip. That non-issue has been properly removed from the article (zero encyclopedic value), and we now need to evaluate the topic. Since it fails WP:BIO it should be deleted. If any information regarding Lehman is warranted, it should be at Lehman Brothers. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable, though most likely highly paid, bank employee. Yworo (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. He was one of the top 12 people at Lehman Brothers, and is now one of the top 12 people at Barclays Capital: he's head of global investment banking. Coverage of him dates back to at least 2000:. There is certainly sufficient coverage of him to assert notability, though you have to look in the financial press for much of it. He received significant coverage in at least one book published by a reputable publisher about the financial crisis:. Another mention here:. More significant coverage from Business Week:. Coverage by Reuters:; the FT:; NYT blog:; Bloomberg:; Forbes:; The Deal:; MarketWatch:; Financial News:. Yes, the coverage of his leaked letter was silly, but he notable aside from it and there's also a reliable source for the letter, i.e. the Telegraph: (whether we include it is another matter). Deletion would be a knee-jerk response. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per FnW. Plenty of coverage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He may of been one of the top 12 people at L-man bros but does that mean he is notable or that there will be coverage of him to make a decent biography? Have we got BLP articles of the other eleven top people at L-man bros? As regards Fences and Windows comment and citations were he is only named or briefly mentioned, Fences says,Coverage of him dates back to at least 2000: in the cite provided it smply has his name that is all Perhaps merge with Lehman Brothers. Just looking at the Lehman article, there you will find a picture of Pete Peterson and this comment.. Under Peterson's leadership as Chairman and CEO... So he was chairman and CEO of Lehmans and he hasn't got himself a BLP.  Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHER and all that, but you mean Peter George Peterson, who does indeed have a bio? Don't just dismiss all the coverage because the citation from 2000 is just mentioning him by name, some of those references discuss McGee in detail. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you seem to be under the impression that what I found freely available by Googling is all that has been printed about the man. My Google foo is indeed powerful, but I suspect other sources will exist that I didn't find. And did you try looking for sources in the financial press before nominating? Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I missed these snippet: he's on the advisory councils of the McCombs School of Business at UTA, one of the top US business schools, and the Bendheim Center for Finance at Princeton  Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the internal, I missed that, as I said though being one of the 12 top lehman people is not a precurser to a BLP, I appreciate the links but I am swamped with links, you have had a look, is there anything in them that is worthy of adding to the articles about him? Do you have any intention of adding anything from these links? He is on the advisory board of the bla buisness school, what is notable abouut that? nothing, and he is on the belnhiem center for finance, also not worthy of inclusion unless you want to fluff it up, come on, all these links you have added but there is nothing of value to add is there? Surely if there was you would have added it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm just being lazy and hoping someone else will expand it based on the sources I spent a fair wee while finding? Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand the stub. Reliable sources exist to pad it out to a full paragraph. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Article has been greatly improved, all things considered in its present state I would not have nominated it. Off2riorob (talk) 09:48, 24 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.