Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom McAlpin (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Tom McAlpin
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Lack of “notability”. The article is more than three years old, but lacks “reliable sources” that establish notability. When previously nominated (which nomination ended without consensus), those who argued for keeping the article expressed the belief that a little work could find evidence of notability, and/or that McAlpin's significance was going to grow. No one has actually added any such evidence (and, in the subsequent period, the article has been explicitly tagged on notability). The second argument plainly failed WP:CRYSTAL, and, in the subsequent period, McAlpin has basically been fired . SlamDiego&#8592;T 14:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Comment I am finding 91 google news hits:  Not all are for this man, there's a police chief by the same name who is also quoted.  Most of these are about his work with the cruise company.  Most of the articles just quote him and mention him in a paragraph or two, in the context of the cruise line.  There are two articles about water skiing, is that the same man?  There is sustained coverage over a period of several years but I can't find any articles.  I would say Keep if we can find even a single reliable source written specifically about this man and not just quoting him in passing (in any capacity, cruise line company president or anything else).  But I would say Delete in the absence of such a source.  Cazort (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  —94.196.163.252 (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  —94.196.163.252 (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comments at the previous AFD, and per the substantial improvements since the last AFD nomination. Senior level manager at a number of large and notable organisations, with enough sources discussing him to fulfil our requirements.  There are reliable sources linked in the article.  I don't see what the issue is here. JulesH (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Your original comment noted that he was mentioned in three non-Disney publications (a short blurb in a travel-jobs newsletter; a brief announcement that he would be speaking at a College of Business; his in-house profile at Make-a-Wish); a small number of mentions, even by “reliable sources”, isn't sufficient evidence of “notability”.  And, while the edits subsequent to |the last AfD discussion may have been improvements of some sort, they do almost nothing to address the issue of establishing “notability” with “reliable sources”.  If someone says that a building is structurally unsound, one does not point to subsequent improvements in the electrical wiring as if they addressed the complaint.  Where are the “reliable sources” that treat him as notable? —SlamDiego&#8592;T 23:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep President of a major division of Disney is sufficient. Whether he was fired or not is hardly relevant. DGG (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Whether he was fired is relevant in response to earlier claims that he was notable because he would be in charge of even more Disney ship. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 03:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I commented on the previous AFD and still feel the article should be kept.  Why are some editors so intent on removing it?   Whether it passes the strict notability guidelines or not, the article is useful to those looking for information on McAlpin.  The information in the article is sourced and accurate.  What is the harm in keeping it?  If space was an issue on Wikipedia, I'd agree that it could be deleted. Many people in history may no longer be considered notable, but in the interest of those doing research in the future, we don't delete their mention in the history books. --Thomprod (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: Please read “Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions” and “Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions”. I would be about as happy to have this article brought up-to-snuff on “notability” as to have it deleted, but it seems reasonably clear that it's not going to be brought up-to-snuff.  If you have a legitimate challenge to WP:NOTE, then I suggest that you produce it, rather than questioning the motives of another editor. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 17:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the act of leaving generated news. Once, notable, always notable. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2009 (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.