- 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 delete. I'm probably going to catch some flak for this, but despite what would normally seem to be an inconclusive headcount, the arguments against keeping this as a standalone article far outweigh the "keep" arguments. Those in favor of keeping the page seem impressed by the size of the company, though in light of WP:NOTINHERETED, this says little about the notability of its executives. With few or no examples of in-depth, reliable sources being produced, WP:GHITS arguments were appropriately discounted, as were WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS assertions. I'm struggling to find any policy-based reasons for keeping the article in more than a month of open discussion, but several valid arguments for deletion have been presented. I'll temporarily restore the deleted content upon request to allow for the suggested merge. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
David Harquail
AfDs for this article:
- David Harquail ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Harquail is a businessman of minor importance. A search for sources turned up some routine coverage but nothing suggesting he has actually reached accomplishments that are notable, that his coverage is more than routine, and it is debatable it is indepth enough in reliable 3rd party sources to pass the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 00:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 00:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - He's the CEO of a 15.4 Billion dollar company (from 2007 - bringing it from around 1 Billion market cap to 15.4 - [1]) which is part of Canada's main stock index - S&P/TSX 60. There is coverage - 100+ google news hits, some from reputable sources. The article itself is poorly sourced and very brief (probably created by user:QatarStarsLeague as part of a mining/oil who and who) - but this guy is notable. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE (FTSE-100 or Fortune-500 for UK / US CEO's generally seen as notable) adapted to Canada would be S&P/TSX 60. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- That's faulty logic, if the Canadian stock market is dwarfed by the US and UK markets. We don't scale down the two largest stock markets to synthesize equivalents in minor markets, else we could do that for Singapore, Mexico, Hong Kong, and others that aren't significant. I'm not saying the guy isn't notable, but scaling the S&P 500 / FTSE 100 down to some other size and claiming it's equivalent doesn't make much sense to me. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
06:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- S&P/TSX-60 is a smaller index - 60 components - compared to 500 and 100 respectively. It is the leading stock index in the Canadian stock market. In most markets one wouldn't look at 500 companies. But if a company is one of the largest X in a notable publicaly traded market that adds some presumed notability. For the case in question - Seeing that he is covered in the news (some hits) + CEO of a large Canadian mining company (in the TSX-60 index) - is vastly different than some news + CEO of "Joe's mining supplies". The smallest S&P-500 component has a market cap of 4.3 Billion (
[2]) - Franco-Nevada is at 15.4 Billion - it would definitely be in the S&P-500 if it were an American company (which is needed for inclusion in the index).
Icewhiz (
talk)
06:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Market cap isn't a hard and fast notability criterion, though. Both bullet points of
WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE indicate that market cap means an article on a businessperson is "generally kept" although can be merged into the article about the company. Notability by virtue of market cap isn't automatic. Also,
notability is not inherited; just because the company may be notable doesn't necessarily mean that one of its executives is notable. I'd say the best gauge here is more-than-routine significant coverage in reliable sources. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
07:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- It isn't a hard and fast criterion - but it is a significant factor. With Harquail a quick Google-News check shows coverage from several reputable sources. Coupled with the fact he's a CEO of an 15.4 Billion dollar company (for the past 10 years - company size that would be included in S&P-500 (around 4 billion USD threshold) or FTSE-100 (around 2-3 billion pounds threshold)) - it's fairly safe to say he's notable. We're not talking about the CEO of a mom and pop store with some coverage we have to assess. Google-news - [3] (with hits going back a few years - to 2008 (single) and several before 2014). Icewhiz ( talk) 09:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Market cap isn't a hard and fast notability criterion, though. Both bullet points of
WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE indicate that market cap means an article on a businessperson is "generally kept" although can be merged into the article about the company. Notability by virtue of market cap isn't automatic. Also,
notability is not inherited; just because the company may be notable doesn't necessarily mean that one of its executives is notable. I'd say the best gauge here is more-than-routine significant coverage in reliable sources. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
07:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- S&P/TSX-60 is a smaller index - 60 components - compared to 500 and 100 respectively. It is the leading stock index in the Canadian stock market. In most markets one wouldn't look at 500 companies. But if a company is one of the largest X in a notable publicaly traded market that adds some presumed notability. For the case in question - Seeing that he is covered in the news (some hits) + CEO of a large Canadian mining company (in the TSX-60 index) - is vastly different than some news + CEO of "Joe's mining supplies". The smallest S&P-500 component has a market cap of 4.3 Billion (
[2]) - Franco-Nevada is at 15.4 Billion - it would definitely be in the S&P-500 if it were an American company (which is needed for inclusion in the index).
Icewhiz (
talk)
06:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- That's faulty logic, if the Canadian stock market is dwarfed by the US and UK markets. We don't scale down the two largest stock markets to synthesize equivalents in minor markets, else we could do that for Singapore, Mexico, Hong Kong, and others that aren't significant. I'm not saying the guy isn't notable, but scaling the S&P 500 / FTSE 100 down to some other size and claiming it's equivalent doesn't make much sense to me. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
06:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I added a few sources + a line on his philanthropy (namely a 10 million dollar donation for earth science research). Still a stub. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I know relisting a third time is unconventional but there has been no discussion on whether the new sources added by Icewhiz are sufficient to prove notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: I know relisting a third time is unconventional but there has been no discussion on whether the new sources added by Icewhiz are sufficient to prove notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE (adapted to Canada) is in play here - this is a CEO of 15.4 billion dollar company - well above the size threshold for fortune-500 or ftse100 (which are around 3-4 billion). It's not just the added sources (which are also there). Icewhiz ( talk) 07:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Franco-Nevada. Based on my comments above, I am unconvinced that we need a stand-alone article about this person. WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE is neither policy nor guideline; rather it's an explanatory essay about historical outcomes of deletion discussions. Referencing that in a new AFD discussion amounts to a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, in my view. There is no inclusion criterion based on market capitalization, for articles about company executives. Until such a criterion is defined, we need to go by WP:SIGCOV, and as far as I can see, the coverage has been WP:ROUTINE for a large-company executive. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 19:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: I agree with IceWhiz who wrote:"Keep - He's the CEO of a 15.4 Billion dollar company (from 2007 - bringing it from around 1 Billion market cap to 15.4 -
[4]) which is part of Canada's main stock index -
S&P/TSX 60. There is coverage - 100+ google news hits, some from reputable sources. The article itself is poorly sourced and very brief (probably created by
user:QatarStarsLeague as part of a mining/oil who and who) - but this guy is notable." Increasing a companies worth by about 14 billion dollars is clearly notable. Also, I would made a correction. I am finding over 5,000 Google hits.
[5] Wikipedia lists businessmen who have achieved far less. I do think that greater efforts should be made to expand the article. He also has an extensive background in his industry and his Bloomberg.com profile reflects this matter.
[6]
Dean Esmay (
talk)
- Um, are you aware that Google hits and a profile on Bloomberg aren't relevant to any notability criterion on Wikipedia? ~ Anachronist ( talk) 23:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- not every CEO is notable. I made an attempt to locate sources: nothing comes in Gbooks except for directory listings. No substantial coverage to be found in Gnews; hits are mostly the CEO discussing the company's financial results, which is routine coverage that does not count towards GNG. The company is notable, for sure, but its executive is not. I'm not seeing coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 delete. I'm probably going to catch some flak for this, but despite what would normally seem to be an inconclusive headcount, the arguments against keeping this as a standalone article far outweigh the "keep" arguments. Those in favor of keeping the page seem impressed by the size of the company, though in light of WP:NOTINHERETED, this says little about the notability of its executives. With few or no examples of in-depth, reliable sources being produced, WP:GHITS arguments were appropriately discounted, as were WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS assertions. I'm struggling to find any policy-based reasons for keeping the article in more than a month of open discussion, but several valid arguments for deletion have been presented. I'll temporarily restore the deleted content upon request to allow for the suggested merge. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
David Harquail
AfDs for this article:
- David Harquail ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Harquail is a businessman of minor importance. A search for sources turned up some routine coverage but nothing suggesting he has actually reached accomplishments that are notable, that his coverage is more than routine, and it is debatable it is indepth enough in reliable 3rd party sources to pass the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 00:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 00:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - He's the CEO of a 15.4 Billion dollar company (from 2007 - bringing it from around 1 Billion market cap to 15.4 - [1]) which is part of Canada's main stock index - S&P/TSX 60. There is coverage - 100+ google news hits, some from reputable sources. The article itself is poorly sourced and very brief (probably created by user:QatarStarsLeague as part of a mining/oil who and who) - but this guy is notable. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE (FTSE-100 or Fortune-500 for UK / US CEO's generally seen as notable) adapted to Canada would be S&P/TSX 60. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- That's faulty logic, if the Canadian stock market is dwarfed by the US and UK markets. We don't scale down the two largest stock markets to synthesize equivalents in minor markets, else we could do that for Singapore, Mexico, Hong Kong, and others that aren't significant. I'm not saying the guy isn't notable, but scaling the S&P 500 / FTSE 100 down to some other size and claiming it's equivalent doesn't make much sense to me. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
06:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- S&P/TSX-60 is a smaller index - 60 components - compared to 500 and 100 respectively. It is the leading stock index in the Canadian stock market. In most markets one wouldn't look at 500 companies. But if a company is one of the largest X in a notable publicaly traded market that adds some presumed notability. For the case in question - Seeing that he is covered in the news (some hits) + CEO of a large Canadian mining company (in the TSX-60 index) - is vastly different than some news + CEO of "Joe's mining supplies". The smallest S&P-500 component has a market cap of 4.3 Billion (
[2]) - Franco-Nevada is at 15.4 Billion - it would definitely be in the S&P-500 if it were an American company (which is needed for inclusion in the index).
Icewhiz (
talk)
06:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Market cap isn't a hard and fast notability criterion, though. Both bullet points of
WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE indicate that market cap means an article on a businessperson is "generally kept" although can be merged into the article about the company. Notability by virtue of market cap isn't automatic. Also,
notability is not inherited; just because the company may be notable doesn't necessarily mean that one of its executives is notable. I'd say the best gauge here is more-than-routine significant coverage in reliable sources. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
07:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- It isn't a hard and fast criterion - but it is a significant factor. With Harquail a quick Google-News check shows coverage from several reputable sources. Coupled with the fact he's a CEO of an 15.4 Billion dollar company (for the past 10 years - company size that would be included in S&P-500 (around 4 billion USD threshold) or FTSE-100 (around 2-3 billion pounds threshold)) - it's fairly safe to say he's notable. We're not talking about the CEO of a mom and pop store with some coverage we have to assess. Google-news - [3] (with hits going back a few years - to 2008 (single) and several before 2014). Icewhiz ( talk) 09:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Market cap isn't a hard and fast notability criterion, though. Both bullet points of
WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE indicate that market cap means an article on a businessperson is "generally kept" although can be merged into the article about the company. Notability by virtue of market cap isn't automatic. Also,
notability is not inherited; just because the company may be notable doesn't necessarily mean that one of its executives is notable. I'd say the best gauge here is more-than-routine significant coverage in reliable sources. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
07:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- S&P/TSX-60 is a smaller index - 60 components - compared to 500 and 100 respectively. It is the leading stock index in the Canadian stock market. In most markets one wouldn't look at 500 companies. But if a company is one of the largest X in a notable publicaly traded market that adds some presumed notability. For the case in question - Seeing that he is covered in the news (some hits) + CEO of a large Canadian mining company (in the TSX-60 index) - is vastly different than some news + CEO of "Joe's mining supplies". The smallest S&P-500 component has a market cap of 4.3 Billion (
[2]) - Franco-Nevada is at 15.4 Billion - it would definitely be in the S&P-500 if it were an American company (which is needed for inclusion in the index).
Icewhiz (
talk)
06:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- That's faulty logic, if the Canadian stock market is dwarfed by the US and UK markets. We don't scale down the two largest stock markets to synthesize equivalents in minor markets, else we could do that for Singapore, Mexico, Hong Kong, and others that aren't significant. I'm not saying the guy isn't notable, but scaling the S&P 500 / FTSE 100 down to some other size and claiming it's equivalent doesn't make much sense to me. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
06:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I added a few sources + a line on his philanthropy (namely a 10 million dollar donation for earth science research). Still a stub. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I know relisting a third time is unconventional but there has been no discussion on whether the new sources added by Icewhiz are sufficient to prove notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: I know relisting a third time is unconventional but there has been no discussion on whether the new sources added by Icewhiz are sufficient to prove notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE (adapted to Canada) is in play here - this is a CEO of 15.4 billion dollar company - well above the size threshold for fortune-500 or ftse100 (which are around 3-4 billion). It's not just the added sources (which are also there). Icewhiz ( talk) 07:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Franco-Nevada. Based on my comments above, I am unconvinced that we need a stand-alone article about this person. WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE is neither policy nor guideline; rather it's an explanatory essay about historical outcomes of deletion discussions. Referencing that in a new AFD discussion amounts to a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, in my view. There is no inclusion criterion based on market capitalization, for articles about company executives. Until such a criterion is defined, we need to go by WP:SIGCOV, and as far as I can see, the coverage has been WP:ROUTINE for a large-company executive. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 19:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: I agree with IceWhiz who wrote:"Keep - He's the CEO of a 15.4 Billion dollar company (from 2007 - bringing it from around 1 Billion market cap to 15.4 -
[4]) which is part of Canada's main stock index -
S&P/TSX 60. There is coverage - 100+ google news hits, some from reputable sources. The article itself is poorly sourced and very brief (probably created by
user:QatarStarsLeague as part of a mining/oil who and who) - but this guy is notable." Increasing a companies worth by about 14 billion dollars is clearly notable. Also, I would made a correction. I am finding over 5,000 Google hits.
[5] Wikipedia lists businessmen who have achieved far less. I do think that greater efforts should be made to expand the article. He also has an extensive background in his industry and his Bloomberg.com profile reflects this matter.
[6]
Dean Esmay (
talk)
- Um, are you aware that Google hits and a profile on Bloomberg aren't relevant to any notability criterion on Wikipedia? ~ Anachronist ( talk) 23:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- not every CEO is notable. I made an attempt to locate sources: nothing comes in Gbooks except for directory listings. No substantial coverage to be found in Gnews; hits are mostly the CEO discussing the company's financial results, which is routine coverage that does not count towards GNG. The company is notable, for sure, but its executive is not. I'm not seeing coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- 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.