Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Byerly

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 delete‎. I find the arguments against keeping substantially stronger. The precise wording of RSSM is somewhat tangential; it is a long-established principle that newspapers range from national to local and from professional to amateur, and that a local, amateur publication is going to be given far less weight in determining notability than, say, the NYT. There is also the question of intellectual independence. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Byerly[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:GNG and is a run-of-the-mill spokesperson for a government agency. All but three of the references are either by NASA (Byerly's employer) or by Texas A&M (his alma mater), which would not be independent. Of the other three, one is a deadlink but appears to be about a NASA program and not coverage focused on Byerly, one is also a deadlink but appears to have been to a video on the National Air and Space Museum on which his voice "appears" (so not coverage), the third is a hyper local blogspot post about Byerly speaking at a local library. This article appears to have been created and maintained by mostly single-purpose accounts that likely have a WP:COI, one of which deleted said COI concerns from the article talk page. GPL93 (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spaceflight and Texas. GPL93 (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or update article - No longer with NASA. Good bio info: TAMU News Nov 2022 He appears to be employed by SLB tech company. — Maile (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may be bio info, but it's not a notability lending source because it's alumni news from Texas A&M's website and therefore not independent. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Updated the article with several more news sources and reference material (although I disagree that some of the Texas A&M references lacked independence. Most were published by legitimate news outlets/publications and written by journalists, as opposed to the marketing arm of the University). Current article already reflects Byerly as an alumni of NASA, so I did not edit further. In terms of the notability question, I believe the existing number of sources addresses this, and you can also reference the other select NASA commentators such as George Diller and others that have articles here. These were not "run of the mill" spokespersons, but rather individuals who took part in higher-profile, historical missions for the agency toward the end of the space shuttle program and were widely covered in national and international media.

Transformer911 (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can disagree, but per Wikipedia policies these sources are deemed to lack independence. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an invalid argument to keep an article and the missions were covered, but Byerly himself was not. Best,GPL93 (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Public Affairs Officer is not an inherently notable role. The sources cover mainly his statements as the spokesperson rather than him specifically. Texas A&M and the college newspaper do cover him in detail but are not truly independent.-KH-1 (talk) 05:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Transformer911 and the historical notability of participants in the Space Shuttle program and the servicing of the Hubble Space Telescope. College newspapers are written by student journalists and their articles are independent of the subjects they report on (i.e. if they were reporting on the college newspaper itself then the point of "independence" may be valid). These are feature articles about a notable and accomplished individual such as would be found in any newspaper or other publication. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RSSM, student media is not considered notability-lending. Simply being one of hundreds of members of an overall shuttle mission also doesn't guarantee notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSSM is not a guideline or policy page. It does state that student media "can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available." Student journalists are journalists, by both professional calling and training. When a reputable student publication prints a feature article on an individual not an employee of the school then it is as reputable as any other media coverage. The "student" sources in Byerly's article are as reputable as if they were printed in the New York Times, and belittling their coverage for the sake of deleting this article should be both discounted and ignored by editors and the closer. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not true. They are not as reputable as the NYT given that the editors are also students with limited experience and they generally have very limited circulation and a lower barrier for entry to both become a journalist (and many student journalists have no intention of pursuing journalism post-graduation and see participation as an extra-curricular activity) and also for the inclusion of articles. This isn't belittling anyone, these are facts. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is belittling and dismissive of multiple, legitimate sources for the sake of what seems to be a personal mission and bias to delete the article. It also ignores the fact there are dozens of other national and international sources that are used throughout. To say that "simply being one of hundreds of members of an overall shuttle mission" is a gross misunderstanding of Byerly's and others' roles. This individual was the primary spokesperson and voice of Mission Control during some of the final flights of the shuttle program (especially Discovery) and his commentary was widely quoted during that time and since. His public profile was known throughout the wider NASA community (and continues to be), so to attempt to dismiss it repeatedly, and then dismiss the journalists and others who covered his commentary and his other work is unfair. It is also a slippery slope to start measuring journalistic integrity based on perceived experience or circulation. Some of these sources have a higher circulation and audience than several other daily newspapers and sites. Transformer911 (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except we can measure that a college paper's reporters are not professional, which is one of the reasons why WP:RSSM was added as non-notability lending via consensus. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted by KH-1 the page references do not indicate notablity and no sources cover him specifically other than his alama mater student publications which is very close to the topic and thus not truly independent. Per WP:RSSM, student media is not considered notability-lending. And as noted by GPL93 the article appears to have been created and maintained by mostly single-purpose accounts that likely have a WP:COI. Gsearch has not pulled notable coverage. Cacaochippy (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2023

Again with WP:RSSM. It either does not apply (the subject does not work for the college) nor does it say that student sources cannot be used. Please read it. The newspapers is not very close to the subject just because he graduated from the school - that's like saying that the Chicago Sun-Times wouldn't be reputable writing about someone who used to live in Chicago. All of these comments about being featured in a student newspaper should not only be ignored as negative criticism but should be credited as reputable sources, as they are on the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does apply. The coverage is directly related to Byerly being an alum. It's not like he's being covered by student newspapers for other institutions, just the school he attended. It's not that these sources can't be used, it states that the coverage shouldn't be counted towards notability. Even so, only 2 of the 5 Texas A&M sources are from the student paper. GPL93 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feature articles on individuals are common in student publications, regardless of where the subject went to college. Just because he is a graduate of Texas A&M doesn't change the information found in the sources. That's like saying film magazines can't cover actors because they appeared in films, or Sporting News shouldn't be a source for people that have played sports. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. Both of those are publications on an entire field with professional journalists. A more apt example would be coverage of a high school athlete in the local paper, which consensus has determined is not notability-lending just as they have for student media. It's also not "regardless", there is a direct correlation. These articles aren't from the Harvard Crimson or The Daily Toreador, and are essentially "alum is doing this" from his alma mater. GPL93 (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More than a dozen of the sources in the article are from national and international news networks, particularly around his involvement with the final space shuttle missions and the International Space Station. He was a key, notable figure during those flights, and the coverage indicates such. Comparing it to a "high school athlete" or saying the coverage is "alum is doing this" is reductive, not logical, and an attempt to belittle both the coverage and the subject at the same time. Transformer911 (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The other sources are passing mentions and quick quotes, which do not lend to notability as they are not WP:SIGCOV of the subject and none of those articles about him. If he is such a key figure then why isn't there in-depth coverage from better sources? Why hasn't CBS or the Associated Press actually covered him at all except for quotes he's given on behalf of NASA? I can't even find anything in terms of significant from his hometown's newspaper, the Tyler Morning Telegraph. GPL93 (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man argument. Perhaps he never gave an interview to the Tyler Morning Telegraph. Perhaps he did and it's behind a paywall. Perhaps it's been archived and is no longer searchable. Either way, I'm confident you would have continued to attack its relevance, as you have on all of the sources. In terms of your CBS and Associated Press comment, neither of those outlets typically do in-depth personal profiles on people (unless it's 60 Minutes or a feature-type outlet such as that), but yet both of those media outlets as well as others found Byerly relevant and impactful enough to quote him repeatedly during the NASA missions. He was clearly a key source of information for all of them, and they all found him notable, regardless of your personal bias. Transformer911 (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those outlets run in-depth pieces on people all the time. It's one of the reasons why WP:SIGCOV is required and why passing mentions (such as quotes) do not count towards notability. Being a point of contact for the press is part of working in public affairs and that doesn't indicate notability. If it did, most spokespeople for government agencies, politicians, major corporations, etc. would likely also be considered notable. Unless a subject meets an inclusionary standard (such as WP:NPOL or WP:NPROF), notability must be established via significant coverage from reliable sources. This is not bias, this is Wikipedia policy. I'd recommend staying away from such accusations. At this point we are having a circular argument and creating a rather daunting wall of text that could dissuade other editors from weighing in. It's probably best to WP:DROP. GPL93 (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Randy Kryn. The sources in question are all legitimate and have no personal connection to the subject. There are multiple media outlets quoted in the article (and available through search), but the original requestor has become fixated on the Texas A&M newspaper, which did an in-depth profile on Byerly (ignoring there was yet another, even more in-depth profile done by a large blog site that covers NASA, which is also listed as a source). So if one is supposed to ignore any and all media coverage from a newspaper simply because Byerly attended Texas A&M more than 25 years ago, does one need to ignore the NASAspaceflight and Space.com sources because they only cover space and Byerly was one of the main faces of the human spaceflight program for a few years? The argument does not stand up. As mentioned before, some of these outlets actually have larger circulation numbers than other media sites you might quote. And any WP:COI concerns have been thoroughly addressed in previous posts. Transformer911 (talk) 23:17, 26 October 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.