Stephen P. MacMillan: Some coverage of his resignation/firing from Stryker Corp.  Other coverage are mostly about his appointment in various roles, especially followed by shareholder activism by Icahn.  But no inherent notability.  Sabih omar 05:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New Jersey .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Professional profile, WP:NOTLINKEDIN .  If notability is established, delete as TNT.  — siro χ o 09:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I wouldn't call it "some coverage."  There is The Wall Street Journal , The Boston Globe , Worcester Business Journal , USA Today , and Bloomberg .  Note these are only a small sample of what can be found online.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 05:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Source analysis please.  Closing admins are not really supposed to assess sources themselves as that introduces bias and their role is to assess the discussion not judge the sources.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Spartaz Humbug!  03:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Please see Special:Contributions/Ck415 .  It would appear that Ck415 was a one-purpose account, to create corporate profiles.   Stephen P. MacMillan was "Created a profile for Stephen MacMillan because he is the CEO of Stryker Corporation."  The others were: Edward Mueller Paul E. Jacobs Donald E. Felsinger Lynn Elsenhans (tagged as written like a resume) Robert T. Huang Kevin Murai Richard J. Schnieders Trevor Fetter Although not specified as such, this appears to be paid editing.  Once he created the corporate profiles, he never edited again.  — Maile ( talk ) 04:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I have looked at CNMall41 ’s refs and they establish notability.  This article’s start as  paid editing content is unfortunate and irritating.  Nevertheless, it’s irrelevant to article retention at this point.  — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think in such egregious cases of WP:NOTCV / WP:NOTPROMO etc, WP:DEL-REASON#14 applies regardless of notability, without prejudice to a proper non-COI NPOV biography being created in the future.  — siro χ o 07:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for bring those @ Maile66 .  I've added some tags I think are appropriate.  I started trying to verify some but lost steam pretty quickly.  — siro χ o 07:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I looked at these articles.  They seem very straightforward and nonpromotional.  No puffery.  In an edit summary for one of the articles, he said he was creating an article because the subject was a Fortune 500 CEO.  I take his comment at face value.  In my experience, Wikipedia is a hostile environment for editors legitimately trying increase our coverage of business topics.  I’ve been accused of a COI myself just for advocating for an article at AfD.  It was very unpleasant.  The reason this guy probably never edited again because of the reception he got: User talk:Ck415 .  I’ve wondered myself sometimes if I belong here.  — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 11:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is indeed tough, there are certainly many good faith contributors who end up making these articles.  I've been working on an essay at WP:PROPRO to try to start to address these types of articles, which I refer to generally as "professional profiles".  Personally, I don't think puffery is the only way in which these articles act in a promotional capacity, and I hope that essay can explain it a bit more.  I'd love your feedback as I've seen your thoughtful insights in many AfDs.  — siro χ o 22:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To say egregious would not be correct.  It lists some of the things he has done but in my experience, a NOTCV page is one that includes a list of all their accomplishments, awards, work history, etc.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 22:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We are having a serious issue with paid editors who are trying to game the system through AfD. Not only paid editor attempting to keep their client's pages from getting deleted, but competitors of those paid editors trying to delete pages likely to make their competitors look bad. That is something we will always have and can be fought through COIN, and privately through the PAID email reporting. As far as this page, would you consider it notable despite the paid editing concerns? -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 22:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability and paid editing are 2 different things.  If it suits Wikipedia's purpose (to accumulate "the sum of all [verifiable and notable] human knowledge" ), we'll keep it and use it.  That said, I'm 99% sure this was not a paid editing assignment.  It was a genuine effort by someone who got run off.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would agree. Unfortunately, sometimes good faith editors get run off because their editing patterns mirror that of paid editors. I know from my own experience early on. I also wouldn't vote to delete anything in AfD based on PAID. Likely tag the page, maybe recommend for speedy based on SOCK creation or promotion, but not AfD. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 18:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The opening of the creation editor.  "Creating a profile on...".  That is the industry language for a paid editor.  When you read it, there is no depth of quality to to.  It is reporting him arriving, leaving, sacked for having a romance.  Completely non-notable.  There is no coverage for the article.  scope_creep Talk 09:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've looked into this but don't feel I can really weigh in since the pertinent sources are paywalled and weirdly they won't show up for me on WP:LIBRARY.  This discussion seems to be marginally pertinent.  Stony Brook babble 20:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: One more go...  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  06:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete Fairly routine coverage for a standard CEO UPE article.  Arriving and leaving from the position + fired over a romance, all of it routine and all of it WP:PRIMARY .  Another junk article.  Fails WP:SIGCOV , WP:BIO .  scope_creep Talk 09:33, 18 September 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus