Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert M. Bakish
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Bushranger (talk | contribs) at 20:35, 1 July 2012 (Closing debate, result was keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:35, 1 July 2012 by The Bushranger (talk | contribs) (Closing debate, result was keep)
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 20:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert M. Bakish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable businessman. He's president/CEO of Viacom International Media Networks, which is a sub-division of Viacom. That's not the kind of position that would create automatic notability. There are insufficient third party sources to demonstrate standalone notability. GrapedApe (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Profiles in Forbes and Bloomberg Business Week seem adequate to demonstrate notability to me. JulesH (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is Forbes' database on stock owners that are automatically created based on SEC filings--anyone with substantial stock ownership gets one. The Bloomburg one is similar, albeit with more detail, but all it does it re-state his positions, which aren't substantial enough to create notability without substantial coverage third party coverage, as required by WP:GNG.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These sources seem to me to be adequate third party coverage in themselves. Yes, both Forbes and Bloomberg are getting their information from the same primary source, but they have both decided on editorial rules for who is included and who isn't (presumably some threshold investment size, although I admit I'm not familiar with their rules). And the section of prose on Bakish's personal history in each is different, suggesting each of them have done some research independently of the other, so we can't regarded them as a single duplicated source.
- Dismissing these sources because the decision to include has been made based on fixed rules applied to a database of financial information also suggests we shouldn't include stuff like Forbes' Richest People list as a source, but we do. JulesH (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. The WP:N requires that the subject has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." Being on the Forbes List of Richest people is significant attention. Being part of an SEC database that gets dumped into a Forbes "profile" without any actual authorship doesn't mean significant attention.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As per WP:GNG, "significant coverage" is that which is not trivial. How much "significant coverage" amounts to "sufficiently significant attention" is not clear. One metric is two "good" independent newspaper articles. Unscintillating (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. The WP:N requires that the subject has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." Being on the Forbes List of Richest people is significant attention. Being part of an SEC database that gets dumped into a Forbes "profile" without any actual authorship doesn't mean significant attention.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU tp* 04:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Here is a bio published by Reed Exhibitions. Bloomberg BusinessWeek's business depends on their data being reliable, and the source listed above goes to notability. I couldn't find the Forbes source mentioned above. This source is already in the article, written in London; as is this article. Unscintillating (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.