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. CitiCat^♫ 02:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Wadia

[edit]

Speedy declined. I don't think this guy is notable enough for an article. If we had an article on every CEO on Earth, think how many warticles we'd have. Jona than ^{I wish you healthy and happy holidays.} 00:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom Jona than ^{I wish you healthy and happy holidays.} 00:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was the one who nominated this article for speedy delete. Article is very badly written. --Kannie | talk 00:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please bear these points in mind: Jim Wadia was Arthur Andersen's CEO, not just any company. Next, his bio is referenced in the page for Arthur Andersen, but wasn't created. That's how I came to create the page. As for the quality of writing, the writing itself I think is OK. It's just the matter which has to be augmented. I am adding, for example, the strange exit from the top position he held. It's all quite interesting, if you let the article be for a while :) Nshuks7 (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable just for being a famous persons CEO. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Arthur Anderson is a very notable company, see Enron scandal... JACO PLANE • 2007-12-25 00:57
Comment If he left before Enron I don't see why he would be notable. BJ^Talk 02:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Enron was not too far behind him. The event that made him notable was the creation/spinning off of Accenture from Arthur Andersen. This directly led to his resignation. I have updated the article. Please take a look. Nshuks7 (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I declined the speedy, as while any random CEO is not notable, I would say being that of one of the big five accounting firms in the US would put a person over. This article needs serious improvement however. I've asked the creator to spend the five days looking for ways to make this article better. Reso lute 01:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep CEO of two major companies and was part of a major deal between the two. As mentioned above article needs real work. BJ^Talk 02:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also COO of a major international law firm: Linklaters. Nshuks7 (talk) 02:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: needs improvement, but subject matter is fine. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because the article is badly written doesn't mean it should be deleted. Subject matter is notable, as stated above. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and strongly recommend the use of a search engine when considering nominating articles based on non-notability. First non-American CEO of Arthur Andersen and the CEO during the acrimonious split of Andersen Consulting is notable [1] even if you don't think all CEOs of Big Six accounting firms are notable. --Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, CEO for some time of one of the largest financial companies in the world. Lankiveil (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep first, as CEO of a firm as important as Arthur Andersen he is certainly notable. But even if we had articles on the CEO of every notable company, we could perfectly well handle it. Not paper. DGG (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2007 (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.