Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Andersen


 * 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. While the argument went both ways, the deletes had the better of it, as they bemoaned the lack of relevant sources, and weren't rebutted. The argument for inherent notability of the position (or perhaps, notability when all of the subject's positions are considered) did not gain traction in the debate. I have given less weight to most of the new accounts in this discussion, not because they were new, but because their arguments were not persuasive. Since the issue of sockpupperty was raised, let me state here that a check user found all accounts unrelated. To the extent anyone was offended by the process, you have my apologies. Finally, I am willing to userfy this article upon request, so that interested parties can continue to work to find reliable sources. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul Andersen

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails to meet the notability requirements. Being president of eGate Networks, which may be a notable company, does not automatically confer notability to the corporate executive. Sitting on various boards does not make the individual notable even if the boards are. I find no publications for him in Google Books or articles about him on Google News. Wikipedia does not benefit by having a biographical résumé for every CEO or President for every company without specific notability demonstrated for the individual. Ash (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the very well-explained nom. I really was wishing the creation of this article was an honest mistake but the single use account responsible for it screams "CONFLICT OF INTEREST!" --96.233.40.199 (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP. As the author of this page I strongly disagree that this person is not notable. If your concern is that this is a CEO résumé, I'm more than happy to remove the mention of his current position and the company in which he founded. (note this edit has already been completed) This person is obviously notable enough.  They are named in at least 3 other Wikipedia pages and perhaps more, CIRA, TORIX, and ARIN. As the author I have read CONFLICT OF INTEREST and can declare that I have no conflict of interest.  ISPman (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I take you on your word on that (Assume good faith is another important principal here) and I appreciate your response. I've striken my remarks above.  --96.233.40.199 (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The CIRA page has no mention of Andersen, TORIX had his name added by (diff) and on the same day the account  was created and, within the first minute of existence, added the same name to ARIN (diff) and 40 minutes later ISPman added the w-link. We may take it on faith that there is no conflict of interest, however you may find the guidance of SPA and SOCK helpful if you want to avoid your edits being reverted. Ash (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please look at the diffs for the ARIN page, you will see that user only moved the name Paul Andersen from the Advisory Council section to the Board of Trustees section.  His hame existed on the ARIN page for quite some time under the Advisory Council section on which he has served since 2004.  It appears this new user  has merely updated the ARIN page to reflect changes to the Board of Trustees and Advisory Council that came into effect on January 1, 2010 ISPman (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As per the feedback given, I will look for some third party sources. ISPman (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Upon further review of Notability_(people) - Additional Criteria - Any Biography - Section 2, I claim that this person is notable as a result of the significant contribution that they have made to Internet Governance. ISPman (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Provisional delete, needs third party sources to establish notability, currently there are none. Hairhorn (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:BIO. The article's sources don't demonstrate notability. Multiple Google inquiries (,, , etc.) showed no relevant results. — Rankiri (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP., The person is notable and Wikipedia should keep this article as submitted. Please do google search for keywords "Paul Andersen" "CIRA" together with the way it's written here. m3hm3t (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC) — m3hm3t (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * A Google search for |"Paul Andersen" "CIRA" -wiki -facebook -twitter returns 92 unique results. None of them seem to be reliable secondary sources indicative of the subject's notability. — Rankiri (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP., The person is notable and Wikipedia should keep this article as submitted. LouieNet (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC) — LouieNet (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * COMMENT - User:ISPman, User:Minipc101, User:m3hm3t and User:LouieNet are under discussion at Sockpuppet investigations. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * RESPONSE - With all due respect, is this the way that you respond to all people that put up a reasonable argument against a page that you have nominated for deletion? By accusing them of SockPuppetry?  To my knowledge I don't know any of these other users, nor for that matter do I know if the others are all the same person but I doubt it.  I find your comment utterly insulting and against the spirit of what projects like Wikipedia are trying to achieve.  I suggest you review the sections that deal with not biting the newcomers, no personal attacks, and civility.  I refuse to have the hard work and research that I have done by constantly abused by users like User:Ash.  I will be issuing reverts on all other Wikipedia pages that I have corrected and/or updated, and they will go back to their former, inaccurate state.  Thank-you User:Ash for contributing to the inaccuracy of Wikipedia ISPman (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * COMMENT Upon further review, I'm also very curious as to why User:Ash has accused User:Minipc101 of SockPuppetry. User:Minipc101 has not commented on this deletion at all.  They have merely been dragged into this mess by User:Ash because they made valid edits to a related Wikipedia page (ARIN). ISPman (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked for an independent investigation due to the timing and nature of edits made from several accounts. It was not my intention to make accusations here or anywhere else against individual editors. If you wish to raise further points about the investigation, please do so on the investigation request rather than here. Ash (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is interesting to note that when different users comment on the same topics, it is assumed by others to be SockPuppetry. Did it ever occur to anyone that users that feel the need to edit pages likely do so because they have knowledge of the subject?  It does not surprise me to see that another user would edit multiple pages that might have reference to Paul Andersen.  Paul Andersen is a notable figure in Internet Governance, and as such any user that edits a page related to Internet Governance is likely to edit a page that is related to and/or mentions Paul Andersen.  To me this is plain common sense.  To you this is evidence of SockPuppetry which I feel is a perfect example of Troll-like behaviour. ISPman (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not continue to duplicate the SPI discussion here. This is off-topic for an AfD. Ash (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep chair of the national agency CIRA is sufficient for notability. added to that is head or other organizations.    DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * CIRA is a corporation, not a national agency, and I don't believe this viewpoint is supported by WP:BIO. — Rankiri (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * CIRA is the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. true, it is technically a corporation, but it's the "non-profit Canadian corporation that is responsible for operating the .ca country code top-level domain." .   DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume that the CIRA WP article does not mention who sits on the board as it's not that notable? Ash (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) is the not-for-profit corporation chosen by Industry Canada (a branch of the Canadian government) to manage the dot-ca domain space on behalf of all Canadians. See the following for details.
 * Industry Canada letter to CIRA
 * Industry Canada letter to ICANN
 * ISPman (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely, such a distinguished WP contributor as yourself needn't be reminded that all individual article subjects must meet Wikipedia's criteria of notability on their own merits. Even though WP:NOTINHERITED makes some exceptions for such nationally renowned positions as First Ladies, I find it highly questionable that a chairman of a relatively minor privately run company—again, not some branch of the Canadian government—should fall into the same category without any scrutiny or discussion. A person is presumed to be notable if he's received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. If I see such sources, I'll gladly change my previously stated opinion to keep. — Rankiri (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge relevant content to Canadian Internet Registration Authority until such time as WP:RS can be found to support independent notability. If so, the article can be split off and recreated. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on the sources there is little reason to think the chair is more notable than the CEO or other directors, a merge will result in maintaining a list of board members on CIRA rather than relying on the current external link to the data. Ash (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a short stub. it might benefit from a section on key personnel including CEO, Chair and the like... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The CIRA paragraph is the shortest section of the page. It only states that the subject has served on the Board of Directors of CIRA since 2000 and is currently the Chair and that throughout the years he has been actively involved in various CIRA committees. The rest of the article doesn't seem to have any relevance to CIRA's operations, so I think one can just copy this little snippet of information to the CIRA page by hand without any merging. — Rankiri (talk) 17:05, 1 February 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.