Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John A. McNeice Jr


 * 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   no consensus. After three relistings and a couple of maybe maybe not comments, this debate isn't going anywhere. No prejudice to renomination. Secret account 05:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

John A. McNeice Jr

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable businessman and philanthropist. Neither being chairman of a non-notable company Colonial Group, nor the, admittedly generous, donation are enough to create inherent notability. No third party sources, as required by WP:N GrapedApe (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Possible delete - For the Inner-City Scholarship Fund, I found results here (Google News archives, two results), the first one is not free but can be viewed slightly more here. The second one was an award from the Archdiocese of Boston which also mentions some of his other work ("executive council of the Inner-City Scholarship Fund, the Archdiocesan Finance Council and Stewardship Committee and is past-president of Catholic Charities"). For the John and Margarete McNeice Student Formation Fund, I found republished Associated Press articles this and here (Google News archives, both require payment). Searches for American Ireland Fund provided nothing but for Colonial Group, I found another bc.edu link here which is a profile providing some of his history at Colonial Group. Google News archives provided several results, some of them relevant when he was still active as CEO but some of them as retired including this. Unfortunately the Boston Globe and Boston Herald do not provide free articles. Google Books provided a few directories. It seems the company may be notable as articles here, here (relevant preview is not shown) and the bc.edu link I provided earlier suggest they are "one of the nation's largest privately held mutual fund", "The oldest investment company in America now operating as a mutual fund" and "one of the most successful mutual fund management firms in the country". Although the results go on for pages and pages, I don't think there is much for an article to indicate he is notable himself and despite he was at Colonial Management from 1956 to the new name "Colonial Group" until the acquisition in which he retired, it seems he has spread more recognition as a philanthropist and significant association with Boston College now. I think an article could be built (probably a medium size stub) but, as mentioned, it seems his career was mostly with Colonial and now as a philanthropist. I'm willing to reconsider if other users think he is notable though. SwisterTwister   talk  22:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 05:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 09:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * weak Keep The company is probably notable; it not having an article is not proof or even evidence of non-notability: it seems a major regional company. As CEO of it, he might be notable.  A $6 million gift to a school is not evidence of prominence in philanthropy, or even warrant for being called a philanthropist--i think it's about an order of magnitude below where I would use the term.   There is sufficient visible coverage to show he did what the article says he did. As inevitable with AP articles, most of the G News coverage says the same thing: perhaps we should consider this as one article, but we could equally well consider it as showing that multiple papers had chosen to reprint it, and thus provide multiple sources.   I could justify going either way, equally well. We have no settled policies on whether to include or not include people of this relatively modest degree of notability; it usually comes does to the chances of finding things at the googles. Since this is an appropriately modest article not overstating his achievements in the absurd manner of promotional article, I used this as the deciding factor. With exactly the same content, but a few dozen superlatives and elaborate description of his hobbies and early life running schoolboy businesses, I'd have said delete.I know very well that is not a formal criterion, but I think it is justified by the spirit of making a respectable encyclopedia.   Removing promotionalism is more important than removing borderline notability. One harms the encyclopedia, one doesn't.   DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:46, 15 February 2013 (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.