Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Adkerson

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. Consensus to keep following twice relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Adkerson

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

I'm not seeing the notability. The reliable sources only mention him in passing; the more detailed mentions are promotional in nature. It's not quite clear from the opening sentence what he is notable for. A Google search is not turning up anything meaningful for me. I'm not seeing anything significant. The tone of the piece suggests this is a vanity article - and it was created by a single purpose account. I'm inclined to support a delete unless somebody turns up something more significant. Ireneshih (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Irene - I see where you are coming from but he is an influential character in the mining industry and regularly features as a subject of mining related articles. A few examples -

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/02/01/freeport-facing-uphill-struggle-lobby-government.html http://www.chinapost.com.tw/business/asia/indonesia/2014/02/02/399681/Freeport-struggles.htm

A single purpose account is also quite a strong term to use for my profile, my aim is to help the encyclopedia provide bios on important businessmen and women around the world. When I find a topic that interests me more, I will act upon that. I notice the sum total of your contributions to this website is to delete material from it. While I understand that it is necessary to prune the bush, so to speak, don't you feel you should contribute more to the encyclopedia rather than just deleting things all the time? Thanks Aardvark112 (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find enough ghits to establish notability. Cited sources are not independent of the subject. The Bloomberg Businessweek mention is more like a directory listing.Iniciativass (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg Businessweek has user-submitted executive summaries. It's basically a resume service for the corporate world. Having a Businessweek profile is not proof of any notability at all.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CEO of a multi-billion dollar company. Yes, I'd say he was notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Head of major company, and of major professional society, and major awards. I am consistently skeptical about sub-national level society leadership positions, and sub-national level awards, but national level awards have always been considered notable here in everything. WP does cover the business world, when we can get decent NPOV articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 20 February 2014 (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.