Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Riley


 * 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. Flawed arguments on the keep side and, please read WP:INHERITED) but no one has specifically rebutted Thinker78's sources (or the last-minute additions from CASSIOPEIA) which seem to be robust enough to support a BLP.  A  Train talk 12:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Rich Riley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A man with a job. Unreliable. Article seems to be a result of COI, sockpuppetry, subsequent removal/redirecting and subsequent restoring. The Banner talk 21:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think AfD is appropriate for this. We've played this cat and mouse game many times before with determined COI/SPAs. It's been up for discussion before. The same person(s) (as per behaviour) regularly try to revert the decisions formed by consensus by established editors - often with sticking in a cheeky dig too, perhaps out of spite or perhaps out of deception by distraction (e.g. in this instance the editor who'd never used this site before said 'removed sockpuppet edit'). I've just undone their edits as there doesn't seem to be significant coverage (other than that associated with the company's take-over) of the subject and this is just another attempt to circumvent. Rayman60 (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Could be, but deserves the community to suffer from this? Why not protecting, salting or what ever other trick that is possible? The Banner talk 22:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When the time is there, and the decision is to delete it might be a good idea to salt this article to avoid the sockpuppetry, cat-and-mouse and other games played in the past. The Banner talk 18:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 02:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Per WP:GNG, topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject , therefore it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Thinker78 (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ! dave  10:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- does not meet WP:ANYBIO; an advertorially toned page on an unremarkable CEO. Coverage is in passing, relating to the company and / or WP:SPIP. Wikipedia is not a CV-hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I found it notable. Please add a threaded comment under my findings above to discuss it. And, per WP:SPIP, in my opinion, " people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter" (see the references I included in my comment above). Also, per WP:ATD, "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first..." Thinker78 (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable businessman. Coverage does not rise above routine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I found it notable. Please add a threaded comment under my findings above to discuss it. Remember that decisions are taken by consensus so other comments should be read and comment on as well if they are against your opinion. Thinker78 (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep CEO of a very notable company. Obvious keep is obvious. Riley has been included in honarary lists and help important positions thereto. Reads neutral and I see no cause to delete. -- QEDK ( 桜  ❄  伴 ) 06:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited, so the fact that he works for "a very notable company", as you state it, has no influence on his notability. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes as much sense as saying the Pope doesn't gain notability for leading the Catholic Church. The subjectly is inherently notable for holding the most important position of a notable company and I'm just adding on to the preceding support, as evidenced. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 桜  ❄  伴 ) 18:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject has received coverage in a range of reputable news sources; admittedly not as much as other tech bosses but enough to take him over the line of notability in my opinion. I also agree with User:QEDK above - his role as a CEO might not be notable in itself, but as the CEO of a major technology company (which has recently become one of Apple's largest corporate acquisitions), his position is not inconsequential either. Eloquai (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets wP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR. Reliable source found here-, , ,  and  . CASSIOPEIA (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2018 (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.