Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Knauss

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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Knauss

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

fails WP:BIO Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I was going to nominate it, but it had a PROD on it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: This is a very heavy heavy hitter, although the article says something absurd -- that he's on the "Board of Directors" of the US Marine Corp. Unless there is a corporation by that name, and I doubt it, this statement is . . . hilarious, even in the post-Rumsfeld years. The sources included seem to do more than just say, "He's a guy with a job," and these are the jobs that run the world, so. . . . Hithladaeus (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, they literally just show he exists, just because these jobs "run the world" doesn't mean he's notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I disagree. I read the Forbes piece, for example, and the point I'm making is that he is currently on two boards. The concentration of capital he represents is staggering. I may be veering from "notable" to "significant," and whoever closes is free to disregard my reasoning, but in the US this kind of 0.001 of the population attains significance simply for being so distorting and "powerful." I didn't do searches for the "What a great guy!" articles that usually swarm around these sorts of individuals and wouldn't have paid them much mind, but I look at these sorts of managers as an unique (and unfortunate) class of person. --Again, I'm just one person, and I might be wrong or idiosyncratic. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTABILITY is based on sources. please see WP:Golden Rule. We have one (1) independent source - the rest are press releases or from his company. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's on the Board of Trustees of the US Marine Corps University Foundation, which makes more sense. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That makes a lot more sense, although it's a strange thing in the original article -- obviously a literary insert (symmetry) rather than a logical one (a non-profit board tossed in the midst of all the publicly traded ones). Thanks. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. He's had a variety of media coverage over the past 15 years: news stories, profiles, articles expounding his wisdom, mentions in business books. I added some sources to the article. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage - the NY Times doesn't do interviews with non-notable people. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, though it is kind of a circular reasoning (a person on the verge of notability would become notable for WP if they were interviewed; so essentially, the NYT interviews notable people because being interviewed by them makes someone notable...). Tigraan (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2015 (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.