Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Doyle

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Doyle

He is only notable for an accusation of a crime. This is a wikinews item, not an encyclopedia item. The article didn't exist until his arrest. Move to Wikinews. --Tbeatty 03:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• See discussion on Lauren B. Weiner for similiarity.--Tbeatty 17:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep in the news and completely verifiable. Meets WP:BIO. --W.marsh 17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

On reflection this obviously shouldn't be a speedy keep, given the objections. --W.marsh 00:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikinews, NN. Do not believe this meets WP:BIO. Bridesmill 17:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WikiNews as nominated and delete. Brian G. Crawford 17:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and all votes containing "NN" should be ignored, notability is nebulous and not a criteria for keeping or deleting. Instead we are to focus on what is encyclopedic, which this guy is, was and shall be. Sam Spade 17:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • One of my reasons was "unencyclopedic". It isn't clear to me how this person is encyclopedic so this is why I listed it. He is definitely news, but since he wasn't "encyclopedic" before the arrest, what makes it so now? --Tbeatty 18:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • My point is that he (as deputy press secretary for the United States Department of Homeland Security) was notable before this article was created. Sam Spade 18:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Are there other historical deputy press sectreataries of other departments (fourth in office of public affais in OHS) noted in Wikipedia? For example, is the fourth person in line at the office of public affairs in the Department of Transportation from the Nixon adminstration notable? --Tbeatty 19:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikinews, this is an ongoing matter, not an ecyclopedic issue. JoshuaZ 18:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikinews. It is certainly news, but, other then this issue, it doesn't really seem like there would be anything else worth noting. --Inaxdaze 18:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• speedy keep please person is notable really Yuckfoo 18:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, at least for now. Meets WP:BIO under, "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." If the whole thing turns out to be a non-issue in a month, then maybe it might be time to delete the article. Elkman - ^(talk) 19:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - Deputy Press Secretary for the Dept. of Homeland Security is notable and encyclopedic, independent of the controversy (which, imo, makes him all the more notable). --Myles Long 19:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He is notable for his govt position without the arrest. --Wesman83 19:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per W. marsh YellowPigNowNow 19:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This person already had minor notability before the arrest, and the recent flurry of press coverage tips the scales well in favor of WP:BIO in my opinion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I saw no non-arrest references in his page. Are there any?--Tbeatty 19:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. per W. marsh and Sam Spade. —A 20:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Might be a good idea to wait a week. If there isn't much development outside the charges, delete it. --waffle iron 20:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I like this idea, if there isn't much developement or there isn't any other noteworthy information then delete. Veluet 18:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Minor- or mid-level bureaucrat and already noted on Wikinews Dananderson 21:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but not speedily, there's nothing wrong with this nom. Being in the news doesn't mean you can't have an article on Wikipedia, only one on Wikinews. --Rory096 22:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep newsworthy = notable JackO'Lantern 22:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable, especially in relation to broader administration issues. Eclipsed 00:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikinews and delete. While it might meet WP:BIO, not until we have articles on the first, second, and third ranking officers in the Dept. of Homeland Security Press Office should we keep it. GChriss 01:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep deletion improperly listed (nominee didnt even sign nomination). Besides that fact, he is a notable person outside the crime regardless. Public figure in a position of Gov't authority, NN my ass.  ALKIVAR™ 01:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Improper listing is not a valid reason for speedy keep. JoshuaZ 02:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Per WP:GD "Unsigned contributions may be discounted at the discretion of the volunteer who closes the discussion." as the nominator themself did not sign, the nomination itself could be discounted and closed by any adminstrator who was so motivated. However as this is the posters first AFD nomination I decided to vote rather than close this nomination as a clear mistake possible WP:POINT.  ALKIVAR™ 02:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
      • That is an interesting point which had not occured to me but I'm not convinced that it is meant to apply to the nomination itself. Is there prior precedent for that interpretation? JoshuaZ 03:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Fixed. And it was obvious I put in the as it was signed on the page, the originator and the first comment. But I fixed it anyway.--Tbeatty 04:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What authority did he have? I didn't see his authority listed on his page. Also I haven't seen any wikipedia pages on any people that are "the 4th in line in public affairs" from any government department. Please point me to their pages. --Tbeatty 04:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • We don't have pages on them. This isn't a surprise; we don't have pages on a lot of things, because we're a work in progress. Sooner or later, they'll be created, and in the meantime, there's no point in deleting useful content for reasons of cosmetic structure. -Colin Kimbrell 06:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just the sort of thing Wikipedia should build and keep after the newspapers have been thrown away. Scranchuse 05:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Why? I don't think encyclopedias are collections of old newspaper articles. --Tbeatty 05:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fishhead64 05:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment great example of why I hate "breaking news" encyclopedic articles. Nobody felt the "#4 guy at Homeland security" was worth jack until he got arrested for allegedly soliciting an underage girl (and Doyle didn't meet WP:BIO before this story anyway). This will be all over the news today & maybe tomorrow... and in 2 weeks nobody who isn't involved in this case will remember or care about Brian Doyle. Meets the letter of WP:BIO based on news coverage but basically just an utterly pointless article about a flash in the pan newsstory.--Isotope23 14:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Uhm per #1 on WP:BIO "figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office" this is a Federal (National level) position in a public agency, that certainly falls under this categorization.  ALKIVAR™ 03:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • He doesn't hold office. He is a buearacrat. Counting federal workers of this sort would mean that every minor paper pusher would get an article. JoshuaZ 03:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • yes, JoshuaZ is correct, he still doesn't meet WP:BIO for his office. besides, you omitted the "Political" part from the beginning of your quote ALKIVAR™ . It's not a political office; he's nothing more than a mid-level bureaucrat.--Isotope23 15:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
      • High level bureaucrat + high sensitivity department + high level sex offense = more than notable enough by Wikipedia's excessively weak standards. I'm not an "inclusionist" by any means but this is a major event. Yes, sensational sex crimes and otherwise unremarkable people's misfortunes are notable. When you put all the elements together this is hardly a close case. NTK 03:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree; my point was that "High level bureaucrat + high sensitivity department = zilch" until you add "high level sex offense"... He didn't meet WP:BIO until his face was splashed all over the news.--Isotope23 05:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just because an article hadn't been made up until this point doesn't mean he wasn't notable. Osgoodelawyer 16:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • ...no, but the fact that he didn't meet WP:BIO before the media covered his arrest does mean he wasn't notable; at least from a Wikipedia standpoint. It's a moot point because this article meets the letter of WP:BIO now, if not the spirit.--Isotope23 16:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep newsworthy = notable. bbx 22:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Premature nomination; whether a newsworthy item is encyclopedic can only be judged in retrospect, and, as always, we should err on the side of keeping, as there's much less complication and bureaucracy involved in renominating an article for deletion than in undeleting it at Deletion Review. Also, from a purely practical standpoint, there's much, much more value to our readers if we have an article for this highly newsworthy topic on Wikipedia, and then provide a link to WikiNews here, rather than having a soft redirect or something confusing like that. Also, WikiNews and Wikipedia overlap in many places; there are some things on WikiNews that shouldn't be on Wikipedia, and lots of things on Wikipedia that don't belong on WikiNews, but something being important for one does not, in itself, make it off-limits for the other. Almost all articles on criminals on Wikipedia wouldn't have existed before the crime; it's just a statistical fact that more (otherwise) non-noteworthy people commit noteworthy crimes than noteworthy people commit crimes (that would have been noteworthy enough even if they themselves weren't). Rushing to judge this article as only a temporary, brief newsworthy item is both hasty and forces Wikipedia to express an original-research POV: that this news entry, unlike many others on Wikipedia currently, is only a passing, transient article of minimal interest. We aren't forced to make such a judgment call, so I don't see why we should go out of our way to do so and risk inconveniencing hundreds of users who, like myself, randomly looked this up on Wikipedia to get the scoop after seeing dozens of references to it in all sorts of noteworthy media. -Silence 03:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: He is a very top level official in the Department of Homeland Security, who has, ironically, been accused of crimes that makes our homeland less secure. --Asbl 03:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Who are the three people above him in the department of public affairs alone?--Tbeatty 05:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • And how do his crimes make the U.S. less secure... unless it was pedophilia with terrorists?--Isotope23 19:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Significant public figure who was the subject of extensive media coverage. Would probably qualify even without the crime, but it makes him an absolute slam-dunk keep. -Colin Kimbrell 06:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Utter nonsense, KEEP. This is a high-level official in one of the most prominent, security-conscious departments of the federal administration being charged with an attempt at child molestation. It's hardly crime-blotter fare. Needs wikinews coverage by all means but deleting this would be out of line with WP's practice with regards to notability. NTK 03:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per above--Fallout boy 13:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

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.