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. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Delaney (businessman)[edit]

John Delaney (businessman) (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)

Founded a company and died on Mount Everest in 2011 are about all this article says, in 2 lines - not seeing this as a "notable" biography, in any regards. He's listed on List of people who died climbing Mount Everest, which probably seems enough, but doesn't appear to warrant his own article. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 01:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He should be left on the list of people who died climbing Mount Everest and this small wikipedia article ought to be deleted as it doesn't establish his WP:GNG. That seems sufficient. This article can be kept only if Intrade is notable enough that its founder's wikipedia article here should also be kept. I'm not certain if this is the route to take, however. --Artene50 (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Any person who is important enough to get an unpaid obituary in The New York Times is a notable person. There is plenty of room for expansion of this article. Just because the article is currently a stub does not mean it is not notable and/or should be deleted.4meter4 (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:ROUTINE, obituaries are not notable - unfortunately, once you get past Mallory and Irvine, and a few exceptional notable disasters on Everest (1996), the Eiger's north face (1936), etc, being killed by HACE during an ambitious mountaineering expedition is fairly Run of the mill these days - much respect to the man for his attempt, this nomination is nothing against him personally, it simply boils down to the fact that he was not notable in life, did nothing major or unique, has not received massive independent coverage for anything, apart from his untimely death, to warrant even a stub. That's just the way it goes on Wiki, and yes, it's a tough call. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 07:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't fall under WP:Routine because The New York Times is highly selective on who it writes unpaid obituaries on. It doesn't print obituaries on non-notable people unless they are paid for, which this one was not. I hardly consider founding a notable online trading company not notable. Intrade is a notable organization, and therefore its creator/founder is notable. This Google Books search reveals more sources which further establish notability and are more sources which could be used to expand the article. The fact that CNBC used him as a commentator on online trade further lends to notability.4meter4 (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with inherent notability on that basis. Based on your argument, every employee of Microsoft and Google, or any company that has a page, should also be considered "notable". I'm sure the tea ladies in Microsoft cafeteria would be flattered, but the fact of the matter is that the details in this article, or lack of, could more easily be placed in it's own section on Intrade. He doesn't need his own 2-line page, which appears more patronising to his memory than notable, in my opinion. In the right context, on his founding company page, it would be more appropriate. Obituaries fall into WP:Routine per what it says, there is no mention of whether certain papers selected people is more notable or not, so you are wrong to claim it is. Also, taking a look at the latest obituaries I noticed a woman called Daphne Zepos. Her area of "notability" - she was an expert on... cheese. Yet she has no Wiki article. Surprised? One has to question that notability, especially from a tabloid, is speculative or biased. Being a CEO or a mountaineer has yet to given an auto-notable status, like Royalty, for example. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 23:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First of all, the fact that the article is currently very short, is no reason for deletion. There's enough information available to expand it. Re his notability (the only criterion that should be used in this discussion), Delaney was the founder and CEO of a notable company [1] and was notable himself even before his death. See this article from 2004 in The Irish Independent and this 2005 article in Fortune Magazine.. He's been interviewed on CNBC [2]. He and his company are discussed in the book Oracles: How Prediction Markets Turn Employees Into Visionaries (Harvard Business Press). His death was covered not only by the New York Times, but by the Daily Mail in the UK and, of course the main Irish newspapers. Incidentally, the New York Times piece, "John Delaney, Founder of Intrade, Dies at 42", is not an example of WP:ROUTINE. It was a lengthy article with a by-line in the Business section, not the Obituary section. Voceditenore (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • a) No one said that it was too short and should be deleted based on length. That would be an impractical nomination. What has been said is that this stub, a mere 2 lines, conveys nothing of notability per se, and if the man is supposedly notable, it has not been detailed. b) The article was created 6 days after he died on Everest, and in just over a year, despite all these claims to notability, it has not been advanced beyond three sentences, which strongly suggests that its creation was little more than a tribute, because the question has to be asked - if he is or was so notable, why was no article created pre-death? WP:NOTMEMORIAL comes straight to mind. I don't feel WP:BIO has been met. Per WP:ORGSIG: "An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership." Still recommend merging his short bio with the company he founded, and deleting the stub. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 15:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good heavens there are literally thousands of notable people who still don't have articles, or whose artcles have remained stubs for years. I don't think that argues against their notability. In any case, Delaney wasn't a simple member of a notable organization, he was its founder and CEO. Compare to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Rietzel (a 19 year old, virtually unknown pianist, who drowned in 1882 before his career had really begun). I !voted "delete" in that one, but this person has much more coverage and in my view has actually done something notable in addition to dying. Interestingly the pianist discussion was closed as "Keep". Voceditenore (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "member scale" dividing founders/CEOs and employees, nor any official policy or classification, which makes that a moot point - Wiki isn't here to fight a class war and only give execs publicity. If the organisation became notable then it became notable through its own success, not his initial founding of it - making mention of him better suited to the company article. Shared notability, instead of this weak claim to inherent notability. Other AfDs have no bearing on the matter, they are treated independent of each other. Richard Branson wasn't notable when he founded Virgin, it's success made Virgin notable, and his success as a businessman made him notable - they are different 2 events and independent forms of notability. Also, the "Oracles" book you linked earlier on Google Books does not indicate notability - the author is discussing a topic and using Intrade as an example to support his arguments in the chapter - there is nothing there worthwhile that could be used and cited in this article that is of biographical interest. It would be pretty far-fetched to claim otherwise. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 16:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject (topic) of this article is notable per User:Voceditenore. I would suggest at the least adding the links from her research to Talk:John Delaney (businessman), so that editors can at some point use the information to expand the article. --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:07, 22 July 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.