Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Kemp


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Jacques Kemp

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was this so unless there are some other better sources, I'm not seeing much here to keep and improve this article from January 2007. Pinging, , , , , and. SwisterTwister  talk  06:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Not particularly notable, but not un-notable either. The article had a lot more flesh way back when, the problem was it was largely unsourced. For me it's in the Don't Care column. Anastrophe (talk) 06:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * GNews gets us and . The first might questionably be said to be about Kemp, but it reads more like it's about the company for which he is CEO. The second is only a brief mention that he's a venture capitalist. In GBooks, he's jointly published Management Frameworks: Aligning Strategic Thinking and Execution with 2 others, and he has a number of mentions in other books, some in enough detail to pass the WP:GNG I think. I could go either way, but I'm leaning to keep. --Izno (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep He is a CEO of an important company. He is notable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 00:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I see two sources in the article which have the person as main subject, so it meets WP:GNG. -- cyclopia speak! 21:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The bloomberg writeup (listed in the article as Business Week)is routine information they include for every executive. Much of it is based on information the person themselves furnishes. We have never in recent years treated them as RSs for notability, though like similar cvs, they are usable for uncontested routine biographical facts. He is not head of a major company; he i head of a geographic division of a major company, though it is possible that the copany is important enough that the heads of such divisions might be notable, but ti cannot be assumed. The article contains unsourced adjective of praise eg "famous. The Harvard Business Review item is a book review ofa book he is one of three coauthors--it can contribute to notability but by itself it does not prove it. The books itself is not notable or particularly important, WorldCat shows it in 88 libraries only . Important books in this field are in many hundred. The book is not in the library of any major business school in the Northeast US--not Columbia, NYU,Harvard, Yale,Dartmouth, Cornell, nor in UChicgo, U Calif. U Washington, etc. ,  nor in NYPL, which buys very extensively nontechnical businessbooks also.    DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - being the CEO of a company does not give one automatic notability. Business profiles in trade magazines also shouldn't be used for notability. Searches turned up brief mentions of him, but nothing in-depth enough to show they pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:34, 14 November 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.