Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Szymanczyk

Michael Szymanczyk was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.

Vanity page. AtonX 23:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. NeoJustin 01:33, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Probably not vanity, but useless. An article like this tells us nothing, and the same information would be better held in the Phillip Morris article.  Geogre 01:45, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Chairman and CEO of the highly controversial flagship U.S. unit of a multi-billion dollar Dow 30 transnational. Lame stub, but starting point for a notable person. Samaritan 08:34, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * A very US-centric view of the world. CEOs of companies (multi-billion dollar or not) come and go. He may be a good candidate for a US-busines Who's Who, but otherwise not an encyclopedic personality for generations to remember... AtonX 09:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Actors and singers and senators and scientists come and go, too. Please don't attack my view of the world (gosh, I just argued carefully for and voted to keep a French town, a Basque philosopher, an Indian dancer, the Canadian inner city neighbourhood I grew up in...) Wikipedia is not paper, or a concise encyclopedia, or a liberal arts curriculum or a time capsule. I'm just respectfully submitting that as chairman and CEO of an enormous and controversial company, Mr. Szymanczyk's notability is at least broadly comparable to a Pokemon pet, a failed parliamentary candidate... indeed, an Indian dancer or a Canadian inner city. Samaritan 10:03, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Actors leave traces for mankind, scientists leave traces for mankind. I just don't think an encyclopaedia should be a collection of everything about anything and anybody in the world, be it some big-US-money-company CEO, a fine neighbourhood dear to somebody, or anything else, just because they exist. My bit. Nothing personal. Peace. :-) AtonX 10:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Entirely unrelated to that argument: Samaritan, my point was not that information on the fellow is notable, but whether he is known for actions or accomplishments other than being part of a corporation that already has an article.  If he does -- if he has been a notable philanthropist or the head of the Elks or something (and quite a few cigarette CEO's in the past were philanthropists and the like) -- then he should have an article under his name.  If he is just the CEO of the corporation, then, in that article he should be mentioned.  Will someone have a reason to search him out by his name?  My opinion was that if someone were trying to write a paper incorporating Szymanczyk's biography, our article would not help them and certainly wouldn't help as much as a search of the Phillip Morris website.  Geogre 15:04, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, agreeing with Samaritan. GRider 18:12, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously - David Gerard 22:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete more obviously. I agree with the above sentiment...it's a line that should be on the Philip Morris article.  Nothing merits an article if the person is notable enough only to have an article consisting of one-line.  And to reference Samaritan's comparison of the CEO to the a Pokemon Pet.  Fine.  Delete them both. --ExplorerCDT 03:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was