Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Byrne

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 No consensus. –BuickCentury Driver 22:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Byrne

No real notability; just another government official. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN is notable since he held a national office. --Pinkkeith (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete he was a political appointee civil servant not a politician, I am not sure that his position at USAID was sufficiently senior to warrant an entry and his publications are similarly unimpressive. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He seemed to have played a significant role in the Clinton administration and for the Clinton campaigns as a spokesman. He's quoted in these articles from just the 1996 campaign alone. Benjaminx (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for four reasons:

1 - The thing about him that would make him most notable is the claim that he "is credited with executing a range of aggressive communications tactics". However, this claim is not verifiable either through web searches or through the refs provided in the article. Therefore I discount this claim.

2 - He is one of several authors of the AEI publication and it is furthermore not clear that such a publication would make him notable even if he were the sole author.

3 - He was a political appointee civil servant not an office holder and he was not a particularly senior one at that.

4 - I can find nothing notable about what he did post his days as a civil servant save the AEI chapter. All the hits I get are self-published websites or networking sites. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN. He is quoted in media as a spokesman, but this is not coverage of him as a person. His positions are also of minor importance -- an executive appointee, but two levels (at least) below the head of a department or agency; and a campaign spokesman, but for the campaign's operations in a single state (Ohio). A person whose name appears in the media may be notable, but there are no independent sources indicating real notability. --Dhartung | Talk 01:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for three reasons:

1 - He's a published author, regardless of your view of the publisher. He's published numerous peer reviewed and related articles.

2 - He is a patent-holding inventor -- would be good to get more information specific to his inventions and their commercial applications/merit.

3 - He was a presidential campaign and white house spokesperson. Being the voice of the highest ranking elected official on public policy and political issues is significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.197.212 (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC) — 65.65.197.212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comments

I have nothing against the AEI - in fact I think that aside from Brookings and RAND the AEI is one of the best US think tanks - that said, the AEI papers and books are not peer-reviewed. Please add cites to these 'numerous' peer-reviewed articles. I find this rather hard to believe.

I don't think being a patent holder makes you notable in any way.

I don't think being a spokesman makes you notable per se. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected Sockpuppetry two articles Jay Byrne and Chicken George have been edited by Mheaddem and the following anonymous ips: 68.116.174.219, 65.65.197.212 and 72.248.108.210. 65.65.197.212 also has contributed to this AFD debate offering an impassioned plea to keep this article. I have reason to believe that all three editors are either the same person (Jay Byrne) or are controlled by the same person (Jay Byrne). 65.65.197.212 is registered to JOSEPH BYRNE while 72.248.108.210 is registered to V-Fluence, which a Google search finds to be Jay Byrne's own company (http://www.v-fluence.com/home/about-us/v-fluence-team/jay-byrne.html). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing Suspected Sockpuppetry All I can contribute is that MHEADDEM (me) isn't Jay Byrne and I don't have any current business or personal ties to him. I created this page after seeing the Chicken George entry, which clearly some political interests friendly to Bush were seeking to rewrite misleadingly to change the historical facts of that topic. I was close to that issue and knew of Byrne at that time. I thought his work then, with the Clinton Administration and now, which was signficantly influencing major news coverage and the outcome of the campaign made him notable. I had found several book references to his work by authors like Jack Germond. If I can dig back to my notes I'll make any updates I can that might help make the determination about keeping this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mheaddem (talk • contribs) 16:23, 16 July 2008 (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.