Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robbert Rietbroek

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.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The result was no consensus. This was a fairly messy AfD, primarily due to significant socking, as well as SPA participation and further potential socking. Somewhat unusually outside a controversial bio, the socking was pro-delete, not pro-keep, but that's neither here nor there.

While some non-policy reasoning was advanced, functionally everyone's participation offered at least one reasonable, policy-based, delete/keep reason, so simple clear-cut decisions on that basis couldn't be made. More on that later.

Let's then continue numerically, as it will help show the thinking: 8 deletes, 6 keeps.

2 deletes are from confirmed socks, so they're straight struck. There are also two further delete !votes (1 from an IP, one as a sixth edit, with no further activity. Given the issues, I don't think it's unreasonable to place less stress on these two at this point.

2 keep !votes were noted as "weak", based on the comparable strength of the sourcing.

Numerically, that places us very near a tie, so I took a more detailed look at the reasoning. This however didn't prove decisive - sourcing strength was disputed, but responses were provided, seemingly coming down to narrow editor judgement.

In terms of purely interpreting consensus, there was therefore none. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robbert Rietbroek

[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)

Biography of a company's CEO that fails WP:GNG. Sources are all primary, self-published websites, unreliable, and mention the subject in passing with no wide coverage. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - arguably, the CEO of a beloved brand could be notable. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Even if the companies are notable, this is not inherited to the individual. 1292simon (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As sources are updated, I don't see any reason for deletion. Current sources claim person notability and passes WP:GNG SwashWafer (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SwashWafer: Can you point to sources which you believe help him pass the criteria of general notability. The added sources are mere mentions in passing and profiles on various websites which do not add up to SIGCOV and hence fails WP:GNG.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. As Bearian noted, CEOs of major food conglomerates such as the best-known oat brand in the United States, Quaker Oats (not to mention being Pepsico as well) are likely to be notable. Undoubtedly made a major impact on the American food industry, sort of like the Jeff Bezos of the breakfast cereal industry. Meets WP:SIGCOV, so more references could later be added into the article. Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Being the CEO of a company no matter how big it is does not make anyone notable and there needs to be enough coverage in reliable sources to support the independent notability.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the WP:RS I found talk about his initiatives for workplace flexibility [1] [2] his policies on workplace leave [3] [4] [5] or his work at various companies [6]. These are in addition to the sources in the WP article about his employment at Quacker Oats. I think these sources to show that Rietbroek passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Wikipedia is not for telling the world about good works. Unfortunately, none of the sources cited meet the WP:GNG criterion of indepth significant coverage.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the above and references added to the article, I believe there is enough coverage here to satisfy WP:BASIC. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 19:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylsss: Could you please explain a little bit more as to how he passes WP:BASIC. The added sources, as i stated above, are mere mentions in passing and profiles.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umakant Bhalerao, I think:

is enough in my opinion, though, due to a lot of it being about workplace flexibility and related topics, my vote might be more of a weak keep. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are mostly passing mentions. Only Ref #4 has a bit of news about him, but it looks like a press release. I think we should also look at the big picture too. What is he known for? Has he had any major accomplishments? Expertwikiguy (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable CEO that satisfies WP:BASIC Sliekid (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving third relist per request on my talk page about Rierbroek's true executive position.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is SVP in PepsiCo and the General Manager of the Quaker Oats company, which does not have its own CEO, as it is in fact a division of PepsiCo. The latter has a different CEO. Subject does not meet WP:N and WP:BASIC guidelines. Should not be considered a notable CEO, this determination can be made based on available information in the public domain including the references listed on the page. Page contains location and mentions years which are not substantiated in available sources. Thanks Editorwikifact

User's sixth edit ever. Geschichte (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Just a basic CEO that doesn't passes WP:GNG. Should be strongly deleted. Thetruewikiguy (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit ever. Geschichte (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No enough sources to back up and claim the notability of the article. Hence fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Editordoingedits (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC) sock of Thetruewikiguy. Strike duplicate vote. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit ever. Are we supposed to believe this scheme? Geschichte (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this AfD needs more involvement from experienced users, this could go either way, and so there is not a completely clear consensus, and the sockpuppetry above has not helped. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 16:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The article is fairly small, with little information. However, as some users have pointed out, he appears to pass GNG. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Manages brand portfolio in a big company. Not notable CEO, does not pass WP:GNG or WP:N. Resume can be posted on other platform. 12.39.24.24 (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not inherited, and this resume can't be expanded on with these sources, which contain little citable information. There is no sufficient meat for a BLP. ---Ysangkok (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is going to be hard coming up with a consensus for this RfA giving the apparent sockpuppetry present. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2020 (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.