Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom McAlpin

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom McAlpin

No evidence of notability, in spite of the article's being more than ~~four~~ three years old. (This is one of a large number of articles, created at that time, about Disney executives who got some notice on Disney websites but little or none elsewhere.) —SlamDiego_←T 12:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any potential for this article. Timneu22 (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, There are a few non-Disney-affiliated publications that have articles on him. See [1] [2] and [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulesH (talk • contribs)
- Comment: The first is a short blurb in a travel-jobs newsletter; the second is a brief announcement that he would be speaking at a College of Business; the third is his in-house profile at Make-a-Wish. —SlamDiego_←T 15:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article was started on 30 November 2005, making it just over three years old, not four. McAlpin is still the president of DCL, which is expanding from two ships to four. I don't see the harm of leaving this stub as is since there is a potential for adding more as time goes on. --Thomprod (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we don't maintain stubs in the hope that their subjects will develop notability. —SlamDiego_←T 16:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand WP:Crystal, but the article does not include scheduled or expected future events, a systematic pattern of names or extrapolation, speculation or "future history". It simply states the facts with sufficient references to satisfy WP:Verify. McAlpin has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to satisfy WP:GNG. --Thomprod (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could you please more specifically identify this “significant coverage in reliable sources”? It's of course important to distinguish between sources that are sufficient to support the positive claims being made in the article, and sources that are sufficient to establish notability. —SlamDiego_←T 17:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's nothing controversial in the article and I see no "claims" that might be disputed. There are four references for the facts stated. We have articles on other people who are presidents of cruise lines, such as Jeffrey Sterling, Baron Sterling of Plaistow. Being currently out of the limelight is not sufficient reason for deletion. Before it's deleted, you could add {{notability}} and wait a reasonable period of time to see if anyone can improve it. It's just a stub, and with respect, I think you're being a bit harsh. --Thomprod (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not criticizing it for being a long-term stub. (I've created and would defend some stubs that are older than this stub.) I'm criticizing it because, over a period of some years, it has failed to cite references that indicate the notability of the subject. You keep running us on to a side-track of whether the where the references support the positive claims, in spite of my stipulating that they do and that they are sufficient for that purpose. I nominated on the basis of a lack of notability, which is something for which we also use references. This article has no references that establish notability. —SlamDiego_←T 05:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sterling is notable because he's an OBE. This is a subdivision of a corporation. If DCL gets spun off into an indepenent private or public corporation, then its CEO will be notable, but without much more extensive coverage than he has gotten, he's not notable. THF (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. He was previously a director of Royal Caribbean, which is an independent public corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulesH (talk • contribs)
Keep. Appears notable within business community, probable significant coverage in business publications not given away without charge over net. Difficulty in accessing sources does not mean not notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2009 (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.