Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Jacobson (CEO)


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Jacobson (CEO)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO. No indication of notability. scope_creep (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep A quick search on Google produces plenty of articles mentioning him. Being CEO of Xerox clearly indicates notability.--  Toddy1 (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. CEO since June, and should be kept. Maybe needs a bit of work, but otherwise fine. JerrySa1 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy 'Keep as CEO of a major corporation. What a bizarre nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Speedy Keep CEO of global company. Sources are plentiful online. TheMagikCow (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Where is the document in Wikipedia that states that CEO's are notable? Most of the sources in Google are trade papers and sites, Linkedin, Bloomberg and WSJ, who's jobs are to report the movements and the capital of people like this. Where is the creative act that is defined as being worthy of inclusion of such a person into Wikipedia and that is written into the core of WP:GNG. What has he done which makes him notable? All I see is a guy which makes more good decisions over bad ones, and is hence good at running a company. scope_creep (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:BASIC for the basic people related criteria. I think he fits them. TheMagikCow (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Most of his predecessors at Xerox are listed on Wikipedia, so seems appropriate to list him too... BobShw (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article should definitely be expanded, but notability of Xerox CEO cannot be in question. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - He is the CEO of a major international company and has been the subject of many articles in published secondary sources that are reliable, independent of each other, and independent of him. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep How would it benefit the encyclopedia if this article was deleted? Lepricavark (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Take it the other way around. What is the public good, or the WP encyclopedic good of having this article in Wikipedia and who exactly will view the article. It certainly wouldn't be the man of the Clapham omnibus, the common man, the man on the street Why does he need to know? Certainly no impact on him. As far away from him/her as it's possible to get. So what about business employees. Mostly employee's don't need to know, nor would they want to know. What about businesses themselves? Well, most business are less than 10 people, across most parts of the world, and even in the west there is is 1 large or very large company to every 10-250 thousand companies. Why would they want to look at them. Well, some would do, but a very small percentage, minuscule really as percentage. Suppliers probably. But the numbers are tiny really. What about somebody that is cool, or stylish, or a trendsetter. Well possibly, but this guy is certainty not that. Well what about the company itself. Certainly xerox is famous for inventing the whole pc environment, the office, office LAN network, the window software system, events, the mouse, the whole lot, which both Microsoft and Apple and everybody else knocked off. But that is not the man. So you are left with a very small number of people who want to view his bio, for investment purpose generally, certainly not out of curiosity, because all these people are Type A personalities, they don't have friends, merely colleagues, or college buddies that were in the frat. So if somebody is looking at him from a business perspective, the very last place they would come and see his details is WP. Alternative, very much more detailed sources would be used. So who does that leave exactly, the people who say, cool dude, you have an article in Wikipedia, cool, you have conquered it. You have completely subverted it.  Lastly for the last two commenters. This the CEO were are discussing, not xerox. Notability is not  Inherited.  scope_creep (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if something passes the notability criteria it is generally considered to be notable. I don't think anybody can say that article is useless because who would look at that? - that is being dictatorial. Wikipedia is founded on open, free knowledge, as long as the content is notable and verifiable. This article passes both of them. If you don't like this perhaps start a discussion at the village pump about changing this policy. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2017 (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.