Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hogan (executive)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

John Hogan (executive)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

BLP for someone only known for one thing Dondegroovily (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well covered industry recognized CEO of a major corporation. I think you're mis-reading WP:BLP1E; his position and notability are an ongoing concern. Kuru   (talk)  00:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep That one thing is leading the largest radio group in America. Notability is automatic and there are no BLP concerns to speak of.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This AfD is mainly prompted by a merge suggestion that he be merged into Clear Channel. This didn't seem totally appropriate to me, and I felt that deletion or keep were better options. Dondegroovily (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, simply ignoring or removing the merge request would have been a better option here. Can you please comment on the logic of your deletion rationale?   Kuru   (talk)  12:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ignoring it doesn't fix the backlog. Removing it when there wasn't clear consensus to do so didn't seem so good either. Finally, the BLP mentioned at the top suggested that an AfD might end with deletion, and it was worth opening it to discussion. Note that I didn't PROD/BLP. Dondegroovily (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what "BLP mentioned at the top" suggested that this might end in a delete? I'm looking for the reason you've nominated this for deletion so that we can discuss the merits of the position.  The fact that you'r trying to clear a backlog is completely irrelevant; you should not have nominated this without an actual rationale.  Can you be specific in your concerns or did you really put this here because you could not evaluate a poor merge request? Thanks!  Kuru   (talk)  20:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And what does prod/blp have to do with this? It's a fully sourced blp that's been here since 2006.  Kuru   (talk)  20:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By "BLP mentioned at the top" I meant that I mentioned it at the top of this page. The rationale is that Wikipedia has tougher standards for BLP than any other topic and if an article shouldn't be here it's important to get rid of it, rather than do nothing. There's not much harm in an AfD ending in a "keep", compared to what could happen if the discussion never occurs. The point about PROD/BLP was that I didn't do it - I recognize that this article is not a clear-cut violation of BLP policy. Dondegroovily (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a violation of our BLP policy in any way, shape, or form. Are you saying you feel there is a notability issue? Last time: what is your specific rationale for nomination?  If you do not have one, I would strongly suggest withdrawing this.  Kuru   (talk)  23:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do have a notability concern. CEOs usually aren't very notable. Most people, asked to name CEOs, would be able to name Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and no one else. The corporation itself is much more notable that its CEO (usually). Dondegroovily (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I'm glad you have an actual point. I disagree with it; there are thousands of published books and papers on notable business personalities with any amount of in depth coverage you could wish for.  I would agree that simply having the verifiable title is not enough (a "CEO" of a two person garage business, for example), but the specific coverage that is likely to result from being the head of any Fortune entity satisfies any permutation of our notability guidelines. Indeed, we likely have hundreds and hundreds of legitimate business related biographies.  You may want to spend some time crafting a specific permutation of the GNG if you're inclined to seriously make this case.  Kuru   (talk)  00:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Although the sources are a bit thin (one is a dead link already) and there is very little about him on the Internet, the USA Today link documents his achievement, and what  the subject  has achieved is notable enough.Kudpung (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly satisfies the GNG. The "known for one thing only" standard is a figment; by this broad rationale, we could delete Mariano Rivera, Laura Bush, Sirhan Sirhan, John Kennedy Toole, and most models, Playboy playmates, and porn performers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Most CEOs, even of huge corporations, are much lower on the notability scale than most of the people you named above (Bill Gates and Steve Jobs as rare exceptions). Sport stars, politician's spouses, assassins and authors all get way more attention. CEOs rarely receive more than a passing mention in the news - many business articles about huge stories about corporations (like mergers and bankruptcies) don't even mention the names of the CEOs of those companies. Sirhan Sirhan probably gets more news coverage in today's news than John Hogan, even though Sirhan's major notable act was over 40 years ago. So, I don't think your names are exactly relevant to this discussion. Dondegroovily (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:BIO, some awards as well. Notable enough for a dedicated article RadioFan (talk) 11:38, 23 September 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.