Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Di Marco

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 leans strongly towards keep after contributions that added additional sources. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 05:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Di Marco

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

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

Another resume, if all TechnologyOne content was removed from this page it'd be very short. Perhaps a merge is in order with the removal of irrelevant content? Thirty4 (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TechnologyOne. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've posted some COI edit requests for this article that may help address these concerns. Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mary! I still believe the page should be merged with TechnologyOne, even with new edit requests. The only portion that I could see establishing more individual notability is the sourced "longest-serving chief executives of an ASX-listed company", but even then, that information would still be relevant at the company's page. Di Marco's page reads as WP:RESUME. Thirty4 (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! I don't know that I agree – Di Marco's clearly accrued extensive media coverage throughout his lengthy career, including coverage focused primarily on him and not his company. (Examples: The Australian, Australian Financial Review, the Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Financial Review again.) The documentation for {{Like resume}} states, "An article that merely summarizes the subject's career is okay, as long as it's written in a neutral tone and the subject meets the requirements for notability." I believe the amount of media coverage here meets the WP:NBIO standard. However, I of course defer to the community consensus. Mary Gaulke (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is extensive and significant coverage as per Mary Gaulke. WP:RESUME is about attempting to publish non-notable information about oneself...this article is backed up by extensive articles in major publications. WP:BEFORE should be performed before nominating an article for deletion.Jacona (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jacona. There is substantial RS on the subject--including the older offline articles (that I have accessed and checked via Newsbank and The Australian--work that should rightly have been done prior to AfD (WP:BEFORE)). Cabrils (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2022 (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.