Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theo Killion

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The result was Withdrawn. John from Idegon (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Killion

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing notability here. Most sources I found in WP:BEFORE search were namechecks, with the sole exception of this, which seems to be largely based on an interview and also much more about Zales than Killion. Note that the author of this article has created numerous articles most if not all since deleted, publicizing various alumni of The Hill School and numerous articles about facets of the Hill School, all since deleted or redirected. To no surprise, this guy went to the Hill School. Fails WP:ANYBIO. John from Idegon (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CEO of a major corporation (F500), and president of a industry organisation. Quite obviously notable Hyungjoo98 (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hyungjoo98, perhaps I've missed something. Could you please point me to the guideline that says being a CEO or president of an organization establishes notability? Because I have always thought that what established notability was being written about in detail in multiple reliable sources that are totally independent of the subject. John from Idegon (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon, This individual has been cited by many as a "leader" in the African American community, in addition to being a plain old boring F500 CEO and whatnot. In addition, the previous deletion nomination which was remarkably similar to yours failed unanimously, and since that time the article has been improved.
- Hyungjoo98, please sign your posts. A failed CSD says nothing about notability. The standard for a CSD is a credible assertion of notability. Stating someone is a CEO is a credible assertion of notability. At AfD, you have to prove the subject is notable by providing references to multiple reliable sources, totally independent of the subject that discuss the subject in detail. Your recent additions are either nonreliable sources, or mere job change announcements, which are not discussion in detail. John from Idegon (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies about failing to sign. I agree that some of the references do not prove his notability, yet do not agree that sources such as the industry trade journals or African-American news sources are nonreliable sources. I would agree that a tag for improvement would be in order Hyungjoo98 (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment, this person fufills the criteria of WP:ANYBIO, in the second clause (The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field), as a person in the diamond and jewellery industry who turned around a major F500 corporation and made a influence in this field.Hyungjoo98 (talk) 08:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep The article was written for the wrong reason, and, when nominated, made no claim to notability and suffered from WP:CITEKILL. Since then, a shedload of bad sources have been piled on, making the article worse. Buried under all the dreck, however, are three gems.

Nom pointed out [1], which should replace the shorter version [2] currently cited. It has sufficient information about Killion and enough independent analysis by the journalist to tick all the required boxes. Two more, [3] and [4], are shorter, but are arms-length, reliable, secondary sources that address the topic directly and in more detail than a passing mention. All three credit Killion with turning around the nearly bankrupt company, which is what makes him not just another overpaid CEO.

To these three we can add [5], a 764-word profile from earlier in his career. Like most executive profiles in the business press, it's partly interview, but it's not just Killion in Killion's words. It contains interpretation and synthesis by the journalist, making it a secondary source. Several books also briefly cover Killion's role in turning Zales around: [6][7][8].

Bottom line: meets WP:GNG, but nearly all of the sources currently cited (press releases, trade journals, passing mentions, routine coverage, etc.) should be removed, and the above sources should be mined for content to improve the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Worldbruce, You are correct in saying that there is a need for significant improvement, that is why I have suggested a tag for improvement. I would like to ask User:John from Idegon to refrain from making comments on contributors rather than content as per WP:PERSONAL.Hyungjoo98 (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to withdraw this in light of Worldbruce's research. Thank you. I'll add some more and close this momentarily. John from Idegon (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Hyungjoo98, I am withdrawing this solely because of WB's research. The article you created, and everything you've added since this nomination, have done nothing to show the notability of Mr. Killion. The fact that virtually everything you've written has pertained in some way to the Hill School is a relevant factor in this nomination, as it is indicative of a strong WP:COI on your part and WP:PROMO is a valid reason for deletion. Since his addition here Worldbruce has nominated yet another article for deletion you created about yet another alumni of the Hill School. You need to take some time off creating articles and read up on notability. One of the best ways to do that is to read AfD discussions. There are many other things to do at Wikipedia besides writing articles. I'd also strongly suggest that the next article you decide to create should not be connected in any way to the Hill School. John from Idegon (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2017 (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.