Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas J. Dolan


 * 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   redirect to Carmen Ortiz. The consensus here is that the Dolan's career is not sufficiently notable to merit a biography or extensive coverage, largely based on a lack of significant sources beyond some news coverage that mainly focuses on his wife. Nonetheless, most of those arguing that have also endorsed putting a redirect in place. The article history remains in case anybody wants to merge some of the content. Sjakkalle (Check!)  20:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thomas J. Dolan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Bio about an American businessman that thoroughly fails to meet WP:GNG, and which was created as far as I can see only as a result of the ongoing BLP fallout resulting from the Aaron Swartz case. This person is not notable for being married to Carmen Ortiz, nor is he notable for having been mentioned in a few websites because he chose to defend his wife on twitter from a geekstorm. If the lack of notability is not enough, WP:BLP1E should. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep the entry. Personal involvement of an ex-IBM executive in the Aaron Swartz case in this manner is notable; indeed it has garnered subsequent coverage in the UK Guardian. Dolan sought public attention via his Twitter posting. His prior career clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Dolan's notability is comparable to other spouses such as Silda Wall Spitzer and Ruth Madoff. References to "geekstorm" clearly fail NPOV: this usage seeks to minimize the contributions of Aaron Swartz and marginalize those interested and concerned by the subsequent events.
 * Redirect to Carmen Ortiz. Nothing notable about him. Every article prominently mentions his wife; he's only in the news because he spoke up for her, and he's done nothing independent of her to gain any notability or fame. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't worry that WP:GNG is unmet-- he was CFO of the Dodge Group after all. And his marriage was widely reported, making him a notable spouse of a public figure.  I do worry that the article, left unwatched, could run afoul of WP:BLP1E/undue weight on what FRF calls the twitter "geekstorm"-- that's a 1-sentence mention at best in his life-- that's a valid concern we should watch for.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, originally Dolan was reported as being former CFO of IBM itself, a extremely notable post that, it appears, he didn't actually hold. (CFO of Dodge Group, not IBM). So, yet another reason that having a true NPOV, "boring" article on the exec is useful. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you point me to the guideline that says a CFO is notable? Or that being the spouse of a notable person confers notability? § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Being noted in a RS confers notability. Being married to a famous person is one way you can get noticed.  Both the engagement and the wedding got mentioned in RSes.  You can get noted for having a spouse that is a top candidate for candidate for governor, or you can get noted if you  get mis-reported as the CFO of IBM.   Point being, there's an encyclopedic value in having a simple bio on the person--  he was noted by RSes before the Swartz case and he certainly got noted by RSes during the Swartz case-- WP:GNG is met, and we just need to guard against UNDUE.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Being 'noticed' is not enough to cross the notability threshold; we strive for significant coverage by reliable, third party sources. And notability is not inherited. § FreeRangeFrog croak 04:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, being 'noticed' is not enough and this is also a case of just barely being 'noticed', which is clearly not notable.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: not notable for his work at IBM, at least not for anything reported here.  Not notable as a spouse of a political appointee. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Notability is not inherited. Merge unless more sources found establishing independent notability. Jonathunder (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Carmen Ortiz. It looks like of the sources provided, the ones that would qualify as WP:RS are mentioning him only because he defended his wife.  They show that she is notable, but don't show that he is notable, because notability is not inherited. CaSJer (talk) 14:17, 22 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, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 11:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)




 * keep Notability is not inherited, but his public pronouncements on the Aaron Swartz case have since made him the subject of adequate media attention on him specifically to justify WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if that's true, I'd argue that media attention would make him a case of WP:BLP1E. There's no reason to expect him to be notable in the future based on the media attention received for that one event. CaSJer (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And that event is sufficiently covered in the Aaron Swartz article. 069952497a (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Neither Dolan's minor involvement in one notable event or his business career make him notable. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agnostic on this AfD nom. However, "defend his wife from a geekstorm on twitter" is probably a violation of WP:BLP as to the living people Dolan was "defending his wife" from. Unless I'm misunderstanding the meaning of "geekstorm." Perhaps it's a term of endearment? David in DC (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Sure, I love all geeks, regardless of how much storm they kick up. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:40, 1 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.