Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Kelly

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was keep Dunc|☺ 17:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Kelly

[edit]

Being the CEO of a bank is not sufficient notability for inclusion. Denni☯ 2005 July 4 01:32 (UTC)

  • Keep. The bank is notable, so the CEO is by logical extension. Note the existing article Mohammad bin Ali Al Abbar. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 03:48 (UTC)
  • Keep On a slight cultural notes banks in the US are genelly limited in geographical area and have a few branches. In Australia banks are country-wide are there are only 5 banks. Although the article dosen't sqay it Gail Kelly is a major figure in Australian business and is certainly noteable enough for Wikipaedia.--Porturology 4 July 2005 03:49 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being the CEO of a bank is sufficient notability for inclusion. Pburka 4 July 2005 04:09 (UTC)
  • Keep CEOs of real banks. Xoloz 4 July 2005 05:42 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see why just being a CEO of something relatively important makes you automatically notable enough for an encyclopedia. If she is indeed a major Australian business figure, then the article should reflect that, but until/unless it does, I don't see how this topic deserves and article nor do I see why the minimal information there can't be covered in the bank's article. Gamaliel 4 July 2005 05:47 (UTC)
  • A good point. This could well end up as a pointless stub. Why people submit stubs when it would take little effort to make a reasonable article is beyond me. I also don't know why Wiki does not have a policy of deleting 2 line stubs, but it dosen't and therefore it should be kept.--Porturology 4 July 2005 07:27 (UTC)
    • The article existed for 17 minutes before it was nominated for deletion - I submitted the stub to put something up, two lines is better than nothing, especially when I intended to edit it later that night [1]. - Aaron Hill July 4, 2005 12:11 (UTC)
  • Why not wait till you had the article ready and it would have saved us all this bother? There are plenty of 2 line stubs that are never going to be expanded.--Porturology 4 July 2005 13:14 (UTC)
  • Keep. CEO of publicly traded corporation.Capitalistroadster 4 July 2005 06:54 (UTC)
  • Keep. N. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 07:37 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article's stub status does not make the individual any less notable. - Thatdog 4 July 2005 07:45 (UTC)
  • Keep. This guy's notable enough for me. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] July 4, 2005 08:19 (UTC)
    • I have expanded her article indicating notability. She is the first woman to be the head of a major Australian bank and she has won the Australian Banking and Finance Magazine Award for best Financial Services Executive in 2003 and 2004. No change of vote from keep. Capitalistroadster 4 July 2005 09:37 (UTC)
  • Keep expanded article. - Mgm|(talk) July 4, 2005 10:21 (UTC)
  • Keep. (Disclaimer: I am a contributor to the article) CEO of the fifth biggest bank in Australia, first woman to head a bank in Australia, first woman to head a Australian top 15 company. We have articles about schools of 500 kids, so why dont we have articles about the heads of large companies? And the article was only created this morning, I was going to expand it tonight. Why articles are submitted for deletion after 17 minutes of existence - especially when the subject is the head of a major Australian company, is completely beyond me. - Aaron Hill July 4, 2005 12:01 (UTC)
  • Delete: We shouldn't have articles on schools of 500, either. The question is whether the person is well known enough and referred to enough to need a biography. The corporation she works for may be very important without making her, as a person, a proper subject of a biographical article. She could be very unique, as well, but it is a combination of remarkable qualities and fame that makes her a proper subject. She's borderline for the reasons Aaronhill mentions, but I lean toward folding a short version into the bank. (As for why 17 minutes after creation, it's because of the sheer tidal wave of junk that comes in.) Geogre 4 July 2005 12:22 (UTC)
  • Keep. CEO of the 5th largest bank is notable. DS1953 5 July 2005 04:30 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even if notability were an agreed-upon criterion, she would qualify. Dystopos 5 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)
  • Keep. Its useful to have bios of these people. Fifelfoo 6 July 2005 04:19 (UTC)
  • Keep Grace Kelly Klonimus 6 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Cyberjunkie TALK 6 July 2005 14:30 (UTC)
  • Keep--AYArktos 7 July 2005 10:33 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gail_Kelly&oldid=1146631598"