Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Thompson (businessman)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brian Thompson (businessman)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Brian Thompson (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

During initial discussions of the notability of the subject I favored that this article be kept for the time being, pending the emergence of articles in reliable sources on the subject. Since then there has been quite a lot of coverage in reliable sources and a problem has emerged.

It has become apparent that virtually all the coverage of Thompson in reliable sources is relevant to his murder. The little that is not is trivial in nature (e.g. he was separated from his wife and once was arrested for drunk driving). As a result, the indisputably notable and necessary article on his killing, Killing of Brian Thompson is little more than an expanded version of this article. This article is superfluous, and should be deleted or merged into that article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coretheapple (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His activities at UH are sufficient to meet WP:NPERSON. He is not only notable for a single event. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - while the coverage/sources have largely emerged only due to the killing, there are notable events and facts about his life that pre-date late 2024, and I think he meets WP:NPERSON as a result. Need to be careful not to let too much of the content/tone of Killing of Brian Thompson spill into here, tho. --ZimZalaBim talk 17:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep for these same reasons. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep for similar reasons to others listed. And also, I'm sorry, not to be rude, but are we talking about this again? And already? This is the third discussion I've been a part in the last month or two, or however long it's been, as far as whether to keep this article. Each time, the consensus has been keep. So, that seems to just be the consensus for the time being. I don't know how many times the same discussion is 'allowed' or what have you to be brought up in the same time period, but surely we all can agree that we should be waiting at least a few months if not longer to let things cool down before re-opening this discussion again (if that's even necessary) based on the fact that we are consistently coming to the same conclusion? InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge there is far too much scrapping on any possible report about Thompson that fails BLP (which still applies). The bulk of the biographical details are routine and do not show any notability. Nearly all the criticism about him is mostly about UHC while he happened to be CEO, which doesn't automatically make him responsible for those choices, nor make him notable. We will avoid a lot of BLP problems by including the criticism of UHC within the killing article are related to the motive of the killing. But otherwise BLP1E clearly is met, and we should not have a standalone of him. Masem (t) 17:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • To add the bulk of the sources are after his death. If he was truly notable beyond BLE1E, there would be far more sourcing from before his death, but the only pieces there prevdeath are routine aspects related to his promotions at UHC. This is the type of case that BLP1E as well as BLP CRIME were written to avoid. Masem (t) 18:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Iowa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we have articles for CEOs of major companies, including those who aren't particularly notable except for just leading their companies. UHC is a major and controversial company, and Thompson is notable for his leadership before his murder. See WP:NPERSON. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would also point out that Thompson was not the CEO of the public entity, United Health Group. He was CEO of the United Healthcare division. Johnadams11 (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Thompson largely has the same characterization as Mangione I think, since he is largely WP:BLP1E, but that WP:1E is not trivial, and he played an untrivial role in that event (even unwillingly). I think the same principle applies to Thompson as to Mangione, but the difference, as I see it, is that the coverage around Mangione quickly turned him into a folk hero. Thompson has almost faded into obscurity by comparison: it's been the US healthcare system that's been vilified, not this one person. I think that if Mangione is notable enough for this 1E, Thompson should be, but the deletion discussion for Mangione didn't conclusively litigate that, in my opinion (though I was involved). But if Mangione isn't notable for simply the one event, I don't think Thompson would be notable at all. There simply hasn't been much coverage of this person, as @Coretheapple points out. I hope that was enough explanation to not just be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS :)guninvalid (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that the AfD was overturned, I have a chance to add some additional thoughts. The closer of Mangione's AfD mentioned that one of the main arguments that went unaddressed was WP:RECENTISM, and I think that applies here as well. To again make the comparison to the Mangione article, I'm not convinced either Mangione or Thompson would pass the WP:20YEARTEST, but I definitely think Mangione would have a better shot at it with all the robin-hood-esque coverage around him post-shooting. Thompson, on the other hand, was just another CEO of just another branch of just another big company. The only notability he has is from being a CEO, not anything he necessarily did as CEO. This could change if his personal life is litigated at Luigi's trial, but even then, only maybe. guninvalid (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as per reasoning of @Coretheapple Sushidude21! (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And @guninvalìd Sushidude21! (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of that coverage is rote obit aspects particularly when we compare to how the victims of tragic events that fall into BLP1E are covered similarly by the media in a sympathetic manner (eg like victims of school shootings). None of these point to any he did that was notable before he was killed. If one considers all the factors that are unique to his biography that there is not covered to a degree on the killing page, this is a very generic business person profile that would fail GNG normally. That means we can still give a few paragraphs on his bio on the killing page but shouldn't have a full article that is a honeypot for potential BLP violations. Masem (t) 18:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Shoot for the Stars and EarthDude 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 17:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep well he is a famous person, with this logic then every dead ceo's page should get deleted Emayeah (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is a notable figure outside of this murder and has information about the healthcare system by being a CEO. Rager7 (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Brian already has some coverage from BBC, CNN, etc. as stated by @Rhododendrites and @Some1. He definitely meets WP:NPERSON. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 10:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article looks good and the subject is notable on its own. There's some notable info that has nothing to do with his shooting as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as there is some limited amount of coverage not related to his death. However, being a CEO of a large company is not in itself a notability criterion – we should decide based on coverage in sources, not any subjective measure of fame or importance – and arguments only relying on this should be discounted or at least given lower weight, in my opinion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Killing of Brian Thompson. He seems like a WP:BLP1E, which is always sad when it's a death. All but one source I saw is from this month; I don't see it demonstrated that he was notable before his killing. Even though there is a lot of coverage on him, even describing his past, it's still due to the assassination. SWinxy (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this AFD was closed prematurely, went to DRV and was reopened. Seems fitting to give it a relisting to give our regular closers time to assess this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Just because his article didn't exist before the killing doesn't mean he wouldn't have been eligible for one - as the CEO of a major company and the other items in the news about him, I wager he could have had an article prior and it would not have been disputed. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 02:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep There are many ways that we can establish the article's notability. KOLANO12 3 09:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is clearly not a case of BIO1E/BLP1E. The sources in the article demonstrate notability as the CEO of a major insurance company, well before his murder. Frank Anchor 15:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bulk of the sources about his role including CEO in UHC are all after his death, which is a good sign his role in UHC was not notable. Just because post death sources have covered his career more extensively does not create notability that wasn't there, because this is all trying to justify any reasoning to why he was targeted. All which is far better to discuss in the context of the killing event article and not a bio. Masem (t) 15:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • While the bulk of his sources are dated after his death, the article still includes several GNG-passing sources that are dated prior to December 2024. And even several of the ones that were published after his death include significant coverage of his role as CEO. This means that his death is a contributing factor, and not the sole reason, for his notability. Frank Anchor 19:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The pre death sources are not "significant coverage" of his role as CEO for the GNG, they simply announce this promotion. The coverage from Modern Healthcare, a trade magazine for the healthcare industry, edges on falling into not being independent under the type of more stringent sourcing we'd apply for businesses under NORG (as to avoid promotional coverage) . The only other real bit of coverage is his being named in the insider trading lawsuit but per BLP, we'd not use that for notability since he wasn't a public figure. If one can take out all post death sources and consider what had been written about him, he would not meet either the GNG or any NBIO criteria. The only reason we now know so much more about him is the type of coverage that victims of crimes often get, which is one of the reasons we have BLP1E for in the first place, as to not memorialize or glamorize or condemn them because of the obits that suddenly appear. Masem (t) 19:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Saying the in-depth profile articles by Modern Healthcare border on not being independent because it is a trade magazine describing the healthcare industry is absolutely ridiculous. This publication describes the healthcare industry, but is not affiliated with any healthcare or insurance provider. The lawsuits, when combined with the news of his death, make it so BLP1E does not apply. With either one or the other, there is a possible BLP1E argument, but that is clearly not the case now. Frank Anchor 20:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Trade journals, even if independent, are often places where you pay to be written about, which is why per NORG we should be very cautious of using the Modern Healthcare profiles as independent. Being named in an yet-resolved insider trading lawsuit that has not had extensive coverage is also not a sign of notability. And as pointed out below, VICTIM absolutely applies here. Editors are trying to stretch anything he did before his death as being notable, but really there is just nothing there for this. What details on his personal life and career can be easily summarized in the event article. Masem (t) 20:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep High notability and extensive media coverage. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is enough WP:RS coverage to meet WP:NPERSON. I don't think WP:BLP1E applies here, as the subject very likely would have been considered notable before his death.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Never thought I'd see this kind of subject as a Wikipedia article. But there's probably a lot more to come, and Wikipedia should be there. i.e., under Thompson, UHC employees were specifically trained in claims denial, to wear patients down from getting their medical services paid. — Maile (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. CEO of a business with over $200,000,000,000 in revenue. Received coverage such as this prior to his death and was ranked by Modern Healthcare multiple times as one of the most influential people in healthcare [1], [2].
Coverage now of course focuses on the salacious details about him being shot to death on the street and the reactions, instead of the intricacies of some insurance deal he oversaw a decade ago. Our article currently mentions he kept a low profile, so he maybe wouldn't have wanted a Wikipedia page, but that doesn't negate his notability.
There are likely lots of other CEOs and business leaders who are notable and we should have articles about too, but nobody without a COI cares enough to write those articles. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM: This seems like an argument for creating other articles, rather than a reason for this article to be deleted; we already have a list of CEOs of significant companies, and it's arguable that most, or all of the CEOs of similarly large companies should have articles. — The Anome (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Anome: I agree. It wasn't an argument to delete this article, I !voted to keep.
We have an article about one of Thompson's predecessors as UHC CEO, Gail Boudreaux. I'm not sure if that's due to her college basketball or business career though. We should probably have an article on Greg A. Adams, CEO of Kaiser Permanente. He was ranked #4 among the 100 most influential figures in healthcare this year, and just from a brief search there is quite a bit of coverage of him.
We have notability guidelines for WP:NACADEMICS for example. Any chancellor of a university or editor of a journal is inherently notable, but the CEO of a >$200 billion revenue company (of which there are fewer than 50 in the world according to list of largest companies by revenue) is not a notable position for someone to hold, apparently. This would probably be dismissed as an OSE argument, but WP:SSEFAR. I think it's a result of editor interests, most editors simply don't care enough to write articles about businesspeople (or notability guidelines about businesspeople) unless they have a COI and are being paid to do so. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This may qualify him for point 1 of WP:ANYBIO, since he received a well-known award. But I don't know if Modern Healthcare's list would be considered a "well-known award or honor" according to ANYBIO. guninvalid (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My comments were a response to the nomination, which said "virtually all the coverage of Thompson in reliable sources is relevant to his murder. The little that is not is trivial in nature (e.g. he was separated from his wife and once was arrested for drunk driving)". I probably could've been clearer about this. He was covered in RS about his business career and named by Modern Healthcare as one of the most influential people in healthcare multiple times. These are not trivial details about his personal life as the nom suggests, and that coverage was before his killing. There's also been significant coverage of his business career after his death, evidenced by the numerous references we have in the career section of the article currently.
No one has !voted to delete this article either, there seems to be unanimous agreement that the subject is notable, but those arguing for merge say Thompson is only notable in context of his killing, which we already have an article about. The references I linked above about his business career prior to his death, and more generally the fact he was CEO of a >$200 billion revenue company, runs counter to the merge arguments citing BLP1E which imply that he was a low-profile individual or only covered in relation to one event.
An argument could be made for the subject's notability prior to December 2024, but that's a hypothetical as this AfD discussion isn't taking place prior to December 2024. Such an argument would also not be inclusive of the practical issues about article size which now exist. The killing of Brian Thompson article is already very long. As I mention in some comments below, NVICTIM argues for creation of sub-articles due to article size; merging this article into the killing of Brian Thompson article would exacerbate the article size issue. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Killing of Brian Thompson. No one here has brought up WP:VICTIM yet, which applies here and means we can have an article, and while WP:DEATHS is only an explanatory essay, the flow chart is still instructive. There are also very few sources on him before he became a victim. Furthermore this doesn't mean that we should lose any of the information here, just that there is no need for two separate articles. SportingFlyer T·C 06:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that WP:VICTIM applies (A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person) and I am slapping myself with a heavy trout that I didn't know about it, or I would have cited it. I hope that the closing admin takes it into consideration despite my negligent omission of that highly pertinent aspect of the guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, just being a CEO does not qualify him for a stand-alone article as others are claiming, and there's no evidence of coverage that isn't routine that was written before this happened. The sources in this AfD are either routine (he got a job) or are obituaries, and we do have guidelines for this exact situation. SportingFlyer T·C 01:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree there should be more articles about CEOs, the reason this case got so much media coverage was because of him being a CEO. Sahaib (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Notable as CEO of UnitedHealth alone.--Afus199620 (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Brian Thompson is not only notable for his murder but for being the CEO of a large and successful health company, UnitedHealthcare. Some people also appear to have a bias against him just because he was a healthcare CEO. Also, the amount of coverage he has gotten not only in the US, but also across the world, makes him worthy of a Wikipedia article in my opinion. AwesomeAndEpicGamer (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Some people also appear to have a bias against him just because he was a healthcare CEO." This is a mild case of assuming bad faith. Please remember to assume good faith in the future. Many of the merge votes have presented arguments of varying validity, and not all of them are biased against Thompson just for being a healthcare CEO. guninvalid (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As an article covering a man who was the CEO of such a large company and with many reliable sources covering information about him outside of his death, this article indubitably passes WP:NPERSON and if it weren't for the significance of his death, the notability of this article would not be remotely questioned. This is frankly a ridiculous nomination. N1TH Music (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As many have pointed out, simply being a CEO is not notable. There are indeed sources that discuss him beyond his death, but these are mostly ceremonial announcements of having a job or obituary pieces. guninvalid (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see a lot of information in this article outside of his death, and while many of the sources are from since his death, that's not relevant, it's information about his life and it's enough to pass WP:NPERSON N1TH Music (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why we have WP:VICTIM, because it is very typical for the media to give a bunch of biographical details of formally unknown people after they were victims of a crime that appears to make them more significant than they were. That suddenly doesn't retroactively make him notable, particularly as none of the details that have been revealed after his death would qualify him for any GNG or NPERSON notability criteria (CEOs of major companies are not inherently notable as some of the !votes above are claiming). Masem (t) 13:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NVICTIM argues for the creation of sub-articles on the basis of article size. The killing of Brian Thompson article currently has over 12,000 words. And this is pre-trial, appeal, etc. Wouldn't NVICTIM recommend we split off this biography for that reason alone (WP:CANYOUREADTHIS)? Especially when you add in the fact there was coverage prior to his death and afterwards about his prominent business career, why would we want to merge this and cram an already long article with more content? NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What coverage, though? There's one blurb about how took a new job and he won a business award. SportingFlyer T·C 22:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "coverage prior to his death and afterwards about his prominent business career" amounts to 'one blurb about how took a new job and he won a business award'?
In any case, that's not an answer to the question I asked about article size. WP:NVICTIM has been referenced by those who want to merge this article, but NVICTIM argues the opposite. Why would we want to merge this article and cram the already long killing of Brian Thompson article (currently over 12,000 words) with more content? NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP articles are meant to summarize a topic, and the killing article, as well as this and Luihi's article, are far too detailed for being summaries. This is a problem with editors trying to write as if WP was a newspaper than an encyclopedia. There is a lot of paring that can happen across all three articles (or even relative to here, the killing and thompson's article) than would easy get the word count combined to under 8000 words (I'd estimate). This overly detailed and verbose coverage of breaking news is a major problem for WP, and editors should now be looking to trim down these articles since most of the dust of the initial events have been settled. Masem (t) 21:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you view the killing of Brian Thompson article as far too detailed, why would you !vote to merge this article into it, thus adding more detail to the article which is 'far too detailed'? Such a case is when to WP:NOTMERGE, and instead to split off the content into a separate article like this one, as NVICTIM recommends to address the article size issue.
And as I mentioned the killing of Brian Thompson article is still pre-trial, appeal, etc. Unless you're proposing to split off a separate article for the trial/legal proceedings of the suspect(s), then the killing of Brian Thompson article will naturally have to expand its scope and include additional content about the trial, sentencing if found guilty, etc.
As Patar knight says below, this would've been a borderline case of notability if the AfD was held in November 2024, but It's January 2025. We can't ignore all the SIGCOV of the subject from December 2024 and onwards, and that there's an argument (even if some believe it's a flimsy one) the subject was notable prior to the killing demonstrates he was not a low-profile individual as defined in BLP1E. In more general terms, saying that someone who was the CEO of a >$200 billion revenue company, received coverage in multiple RS prior to his killing about his business career, and was specifically named in open letters by the American Hospital Association, Federation of American Hospitals and other groups about his actions as UHC CEO prior to his killing, was not a public figure is difficult to understand. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Arguably borderline notable before the killing, and would be pushed over into meeting our notability guidelines by the post-death coverage. In any case, WP:VICTIM is not a bright line rule and there are strong arguments for splitting this off from the main article. Adding this one to the main one would put it in the neighbourhood of when splitting would be considered while overwhelming the page with details that are relevant to a biographical encyclopedic entry, but not to the killing. It would also introduce WP:NPOV/WP:BALASP concerns in providing a full biography for one of the main parties but not the other. Splitting off Brian Thompson and Luigi Mangione has done wonders for keeping the article focused as a top-level article on the killing itself. Merging this back in would only be detrimental to that goal and be bad for readers. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Putting aside the fact that CEOs are nominally not inherently notable, BLP1E's criteria 2 says The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, and I don't think this is the case for the CEO of one of the world's largest insurance companies, especially when one considers the 2021-2022 emergency rooms incident and the 2024 lawsuit, so I think he should have a separate page from his killing. ミラP@Miraclepine 14:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a source or Wikipedia article for those? At least for the lawsuit, I can see that he was named, but I can't see if the lawsuit alleges he had a specific role. The sources I've seen say that he was only named as part of the board, not that he played a particular role. guninvalid (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep – Merging into 'Killing of Brian Thompson' seems nice on paper, but in reality, it creates a gigantic mess. Brian Thompson is, unto himself, unequivocally notable enough for his own article at this point (this isn't WP:BLP1E either, as Thompson is notable both for his death and, to a lesser extent, for his actual role as the CEO), and trying to shoehorn that information into 'Killing of Brian Thompson' hurts that article by distracting from the main focus and what would be the biography of Brian Thompson because you can't reasonably fit as much in there. To be clear, plenty of information about his role as CEO has been prompted by his killing, but that information is nevertheless about the things he did as CEO, not about his killing. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - articles like Andrew_Witty are notable simply to collect who a person was and what they did with their very influential life, as well as any controversies they may have been personally involved in, separate from a timeline of their death or a history of the company they're known for running. Tollsjo (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Biased review of !votes: Many of the Keep votes offer variations on the same argument, and several of the Merge votes hinge on a few policies. As a Merge !voter, I wanted to briefly discuss each of the major arguments I could find scrolling through. I've also discarded !votes that simply name another person, as those can be considered WP:JV.
Offered by User:PhotographyEdits, User:ZimZalaBim, User:JohnAdams1800, User:The Anome, User:AwesomeAndEpicGamer, User:Rhododendrites, User:IZAK, User: Shoot for the Stars, User: EarthDude, User:Emayeah, User:Rager7, User:Sangsangaplaz, USER:TDKR Chicago 101, User:Chaotic Enby, User: Darth Stabro, User:Kolano123, User: Frank Anchor, User:Wjfox2005, User:Maile66, User: NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM, User:Sahaib, User:Afus199620, User:N1TH Music, User:Patar knight, User:TheTechnician27
Most of these arguments boil down to Thompson is notable for his killing and for being a CEO of a large company. I, guninvalid, of course agree with my own argument against this: that simply being a CEO of a major company is not notable. I agree with Masem's argument that most of the coverage of his CEO tenure is trivial; "he got a job". Some, like Rhododendrites, also cite more personal coverage, but Masem argues that these are simple obituary/procedural pieces and should be considered trivial, and I again agree.
Offered by User:Anvib, User:Patar knight.
Anvib and Patar knight give essentially the same argument, that it would be a bad idea to have an article on Luigi Mangione but not have one on Thompson. I disagree. As I see it, WP:BALASP could be fulfilled just as well by having a brief discussion of Brian Thompson on Killing article. In fact, in prior revisions of the killing article before Brian Thompson was made, the killing article did contain both the Brian Thompson and Luigi Mangione subarticles, and I think that was a good move. But to keep the Luigi Mangione subarticle in now would be to include a lot of material not directly relevant to the killing, such as the folk-hero status he has attained. On the other hand, keeping the Brian Thompson subarticle as part of the killing article would only really cut out trivial coverage.
Offered by User:Some1, User:Frank Anchor, User:NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM, User: Miraclepine
These opinions attempt to directly rebut the WP:BLP1E arguments, not by arguing that he is a CEO, but by bringing up other events. There's discussion on each of them, but I think these are the best Keep arguments here.
Offered by User:Coretheapple (nom), User:Masem, User:guninvalid (me), User:Firecat93, User:HopalongCasualty, User:SWinxy
The BLP1E argument is pretty simple, that Thompson is only notable for his killing. This argument is rebutted by some of the WP:BLP2E or Not WP:BLP1E args given previously, but I believe that these rebuttals do not apply: simply being a CEO does not make him notable, simply being named in a shareholder lawsuit does not make him notable, having a DUI or being valedictorian are trivial coverage. To paraphrase Coretheapple's original argument, there simply isn't much coverage of this person, and most of it is trivial.
Offered by User:Masem, User:Firecat93, User:HopalongCasualty, User:SportingFlyer
This one comes along with WP:BLP1E, as the argument is that Thompson is only notable for his killing, which qualifies him as both WP:BLP1E and WP:VICTIM. VICTIM does say that his role could be notable if he was the victim of a well-documented historical event, but it's WP:TOOSOON to say if his killing will have persistent coverage for long enough to be considered "historic".
Offered by me!! :DDDD
I think WP:RECENTISM applies. It hasn't even been a month since this happened, and we've yet to see if this event will be considered historically notable. There are signs that it could be, as some polls have shown that Americans now view healthcare as more important thanks to the shooting, but that's still a recentism. I'd say once the trial of Mangione and the shareholder lawsuit conclude, we'll have more information on whether anything Thompson particularly did was notable. But for now, merge.
Other args:
guninvalid (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm less convinced than before about keeping the article (especially per WP:VICTIM), but I do believe that, either way the discussion gets closed, it should be without prejudice about renominating it in the future when WP:RECENTISM applies less. (Oh, and by the way, you pinged a lot of people there) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried not to ping anyone, just named them. If I did... uh sorry about that folks :) guninvalid (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guninvalid So, you disagree with the fact that Brian Thompson isn't notable enough to have his own article? Rager7 (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, Thompson is not notable enough to have his own article. That's why I voted merge. guninvalid (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alight, and also like the other person said you mass pinged people when you link their names. This how I saw your response and comment. Rager7 (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yea I won't do that in the future. Thanks for letting me know. Sorry about that everyone! I hope you all have a good day nonetheless. guninvalid (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You too man, take care! Rager7 (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
guninvalid, it is not appropriate for an editor to "summarize" an AFD discussion or set yourself up as an interpreter of other editor's arguments. Any editor or admin who closes this discussion in the future should take this summary with a large grain of salt. Please do not do this again for any future AFD discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was inspired by a prior DRV (of Mangione's article i think? i don't remember) where an administrator did the same thing, but I can see why an editor doing the same can be counterproductive when I'm not explicitly trying to evaluate an existing close. I'll refrain from doing so in the future. Thanks! guninvalid (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
guninvalid, I honestly don't think it matters whether or not the summary is done by a regular editor or an admin. It's just the act of another user putting themselves in the position of interpreting the arguments that other editors are making. Closers should read every comment and not rely on a summary instead of reviewing the comments themselves. That's the intent behind my comment to you. And I'll also say that this happens every so often in very long AFDs, we just make a comment to the editor doing the summary to please not do it and it generally doesn't happen again. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually appreciate that you pinged my name, because I maybe wouldn't have seen it otherwise and I liked the opportunity to respond to you when you were talking about part of my argument InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for basing my vote on common sense instead of editorial recommendations. —theMainLogan (t•c) 00:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's seems disingenuous incorrect to categorize the arguments in a way implying that participants who !voted keep on the basis of notability are avoiding the BLP1E issue when most who did so explicitly cited prior notability for Thompson. If someone is arguably notable before the 1E event, then that is de facto, an argument that BLP1E does not apply.
Secondly, with respect to NPOV/BALASP, my argument is very different from Anvib. In fact, if I was closing this, I would discount reputational damage for Wikipedia from not having an article for the victim as an argument entirely, since that's not based on any policies or guidelines. My point was that merging all the encyclopedic material from Brian Thompson into the killing article, we end up with too much on Thompson both in respect to how Mangione is treated on the same page and in respect to elements of his life that are apparently not relevant to the killing and prejudicial (e.g. prior arrests, family separation, insider trading lawsuit). What is appropriate for a biographical article is not necessarily appropriate for an article about that person's death and we avoid the issue in cases by having separate articles when that is justified via notability guidelines. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC); edited 02:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cited several arguments for why he may be considered notable prior to his killing, with by far the most common one being that he was a CEO. That's why I lumped those together, and left the other ones by Some1, Frank Anchor, NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM, and MiraclePine separately as BLP2E arguments. I disagree with your first comment in that I don't think he was even borderline notable, though the BLP2E arguments provide the best arguments I saw that he may have been. Your argument was indeed very different from Anvib, but you were both essentially citing BALASP, though for different reasons. guninvalid (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guninvalid yes, I agree that prior consensus can change. But realistically, how often and how fast? My understanding is that this is the third time(?) this conversation has happened in one month. It's making me feel like there's not enough trust in the process or something, that twice is one month, the consensus of Wikipedia editors has been to keep, but the convo is nearly immediately started all over again? I think it is a convo that could potentially be worth revisiting, with less recency bias. But I don't think that re-visiting would be appropriate now. InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly it's been relisted because of a bad close (and now two). This is the first nomination, and unless it closes as no-consensus, it won't be relisted for a while. I have no idea how long the period between noms is but there is a period. guninvalid (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's ever been a formal period between noms, but I imagine admins use common sense based on 1) how strong and extensive the original consensus was, 2) how much time has passed, 3) attitude surrounding the subsequent AfD nom, and 4) how much the subsequent AfD nom sets itself apart from previous argumentation. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree, as he is not famous only because of his killing, but also some lawsuits against him for insider trading, also my point totally does not boil down to "he is famous for his death" but rather "with this logic every ceo's page should be redirected to the page describing his death" Emayeah (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I would agree. Many other persons and CEOs are only known for their deaths. Thompson is indeed well-known, but simply being known doesn't make him notable. Compare that to a CEO like Steve Jobs who was indeed notable for his death, but also for the work he did prior to his death. guninvalid (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% agree, just because somebody is a CEO they do not deserve a page, but I do not see fit redirecting this page to the one discussing his death and seeing the lawsuits made 7 years prior there Emayeah (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier lawsuits have very little coverage in RSes, suggesting that they do not contribute to his notability. Being named in the insider trading lawsuit along with several other executives at UHC means that the case is not about him, so does not add to notability. And the more recent lawsuit accusing UHC of using AI to deny claims is absolutely not about him. Masem (t) 14:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with this interpretation of things - articles that we have currently identified that were written before the tragic event simply do not suggest he would have been notable for a page. SportingFlyer T·C 18:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The contention I've put forth (and which I think others are arguing for) isn't that articles before the event would've made him notable. You can see, for example, that I nominated David Joyner (business executive) for deletion previously on similar grounds (for which CVS Health paid me seven figures and a lifetime supply of Bill Gates' microchip vaccines, but keep that on the dl), so I'm no stranger to the position you're taking. I think the idea that "CEO = notable", however, is a bit of an unintentional strawman for the 'Keep' argument. My point is that coverage of his actions as CEO after his killing made him sufficiently notable independent of his killing. Said coverage was prompted by the killing, but it covers things he did prior and unrelated to the killing in substantial detail. That is, stripped of any mention of his death, Brian Thompson could still easily have an article of his own due to the amount of coverage of his tenure as CEO that his death has generated. Moreover, the amount of content that can reasonably and with WP:DUE weight be placed in said biographical article cannot reasonably fit into an article about his killing without becoming extraneous and highly distracting. There's bound to be some overlap, but so what? This is the entire reason the {{Main}} template exists: to allow us to provide a brief, summary-level description of something and to then link to the main article covering it in much greater depth. Same here: the 'Background' section for the killing can have a link to Thompson's biography as the main article, and the 'Killing' section of Thompson's article can have a link to the killing as the main article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But we have WP:VICTIM exactly for this reason, which specifically refers to BLP in the event the person did not previously pass GNG, which isn't met here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I still think it's plausible that Thompson met those criteria pre-killing if David Joyner (business executive) was so overwhelmingly kept, but more importantly, I seriously think the spirit of WP:NVICTIM clearly doesn't apply here. The reason WP:NVICTIM exists is so that we don't turn into Nancy Grace and have a bloated, out-of-control separate article on Caylee Anthony types every time someone gets murdered. Wherein coverage post-mortem is either about the murder itself or about extremely basic, mundane things about them like how they got 2nd place in their high school soccer regionals or liked to take their pet dog named Scott for walks or their childhood nickname. However, if Thompson was debatably notable pre-mortem, the kind of coverage of Thompson post-mortem that veers into the investigative about his actions as CEO clearly elevate him for me. Basically, I think we need to consider not just that WP:NVICTIM exists but also why it exists and what, if any, spirit of that we'd be violating by keeping this. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article keeps getting relisted until the Merge crew gets their way I'm going to report it. Y'all have about one more relist and fail before I lose patience and elevate. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the commment – @Sleyece: Most of the editors here on both sides of the argument (I think we can agree that 'Delete' is dead in the water) are fairly experienced, and many of them are admins who understand policy and would be immediately objecting if something here contravened it. The discussion was closed by a non-admin, and OwenX – I think correctly – re-opened it as contentious and warranting further discussion. This wasn't done as some sort of 'pro-merge coup' to stall things out. This is the first nom, and that was therefore the only time this has ever been re-listed. I'm on your side of the argument, and I think you're taking this simple, well-meaning, and well-reasoned decision out of proportion (especially because I think it's helped generate much clearer consensus in favor of 'Keep'). Please, give yourself some time to think before attempting to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. The people arguing for a 'Merge' are here because they want to improve the encyclopedia as much as you do. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say anywhere that the current conversation isn't productive. I'm saying that the relist, as you say, has only made the consensus for "Keep" stronger. I'm stating that a simple use of this would have given you the same information without having to relist, so I'm definitly not going to keep doing this over and over. Also, for the record, If I ever were to climb here, I would be wearing a custom suit with rocket boots because I'm a man of culture. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But climbing using your arms is the whole point of climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man! You're there to make a point, after all. (Sorry, I'll stop now.) I mean I guess I'm just not sure. Prior to the relist, it wasn't dead even, but I think given an AfD vote isn't a "vote" in the traditional sense, someone could at least have come along, contested the AfD result as ambiguous, and started a new one. I think the much stronger consensus post-relist demonstrates why it was a good idea, and I don't think there's any evidence that there's another forthcoming unless there's just some new, iron-clad argument for 'Merge' that everyone to this point has overlooked. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I have just reopened this AfD (again), which was closed by a non-admin, as an uninvolved administrator per WP:NACD. While the outcome may have potentially been correct (I haven't read this debate in sufficient detail to know how I would close it), given this has been to DRV once before for a non-admin close and considering the nature of the debate, it is my clear belief (shared by others at the closer's talk page) that this was not a good non-admin close. I have not relisted the debate for another seven days, however. Daniel (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Thompson_(businessman)&oldid=1267674215"