Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Byrne (2nd nomination)

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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Byrne

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Requests for significant coverage in reliable secondary sources about the subject have been unmet since March 2008‎. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for now) - This is an old one, and as I review it - it appears that many of the inlink sources previously included here have been deleted over time. I will go back and review those which I originally found and used when starting this article to see which are still valid. The subject appears to still be a published author and person of note in prior influential government positions and roles in high-profile business. I'll update this and see if it continues to meet the merits of inclusion, as discussed in the last proposed deletion.Mheaddem (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't added any reliable secondary sources about the BLP subject. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - mostly because I was able to find this, this and this (about the same event) and this. There are sections/mentions in books like this and this which should help to verify various career claims. There's also a whole bunch of mentions of him as the spokesperson for various agencies during the 1990s. That such sources haven't been added to the article is a fix the problem sort of problem and WP:BEFORE still applies to old and tagged-long-ago articles. Stalwart111 03:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did BEFORE and your sources are inadequate. The Malaysian Digest link appears to be a press release for an appearance at an event, and it appears to have been written by the subject and published wholesale by "Bernama", the National Newsagency of Malaysia. I don't think that's reliable. The STL link is passing mention, as are the books. If there are no reliable secondary sources about the subject, then we shouldn't have an article. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the Sun Daily link, right? The Malaysian Digest article is 50% editorial from the author about the issue of social media in general and the second half is all about the subject and obviously not a press release. The Sun Daily article seems like an adaptation of a press statement but it's about the same event as the first anyway and so wouldn't count for much either way. The Malaysian Digest is the significant coverage and the Sun Daily is just extra. Half the STL article is about Byrne's take on Web 2.0. I said, quite plainly, that the book sources were mentions but that they might be useful for verifying things. After all of that, though I'm not going to die in a ditch over it, I stand by my position. It's enough for me, though you are free to disagree. Stalwart111 05:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Malaysian Digest article is obviously a press release published wholesale, passed along from the PR agency to Bernama. It's not reliable, and it doesn't even begin to provide sourcing for 80% of the material in this article which comes from the author, not from the secondary sources. There's really nothing to "keep" here, and I'm confused by the efforts to promote this unsourced biography. If he was notable, we would have actual biographical sources about the subject. We don't. Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, again, I think you're getting the two confused. This is the Malaysian Digest one which is written by one of their editorial staff and contains plenty of biographical information.This is the Sun Daily one that specifically credits Bernama. The second one isn't of much value but I think the first one is. In combination with the others I think there is enough. It's not a matter of "promoting" the biography - you nominated it for deletion and I and another editor both respectfully disagree. Stalwart111 04:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per available online sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:22, 20 June 2013 (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.

Jay Byrne

zproxy.org