Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David A. Bray


 * 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. There's no clear consensus. "Keep" opinions consider the coverage he's received sufficient for notability, while delete opinions are of the view that the coverage isn't sufficient to justify an article, and that in marginal cases the subject's wishes should be taken into account. These are both valid positions.

Normally, this "no consensus" outcome would lead to the article being kept by default, but per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE I can under such circumstances honor the subject's wish to delete the article. I do so here because I am of the view that the encyclopedia's educational usefulness is, in the grand scheme of things, only very marginally reduced by removing an article about the CIO of a relatively small government agency who hasn't done anything particularly noteworthy and does not seem to be a person of interest to a general public. This can of course change, in which case this article can be recreated, and appropriate information about him may also be included in any related articles.  Sandstein  18:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

David A. Bray

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article appears to have been started and written almost exclusively by socks over the past couple years (see history) and I'm generally of the opinion that it at the very least needs some TNT to start over and we should probably at least discuss whether it needs a full article regardless (perhaps, if anything, an article about the role?).

It is important to note a couple extra points:
 * I have struck down the article a ton because the original was very fluffy and really couldn't be used as is and I was not sure it was worth while to try and weed through the existing text. You can see how it appeared beforehand in this old revision.
 * A user claiming to be the article subject has come to the talk page and asked for the page to be deleted/blanked and speedy deleted. I was unwilling to speedy delete but because I do think the notability is borderline already (and so may well fall under our usual policies to lean towards an article subjects request) I was willing to request deletion and to courtesy blank the page for now while the discussion was ongoing.
 * I am happy for any uninvolved admin or experienced editor to undo my actions on the article if they believe necessary (speedy delete if you believe eligible, undo the courtesy blank etc). James of UR (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep -- clearly notable, not marginal at all. I agree that the previous version (e.g. this) was very fluffy, but it does show notability.  I emphasise that this is not a marginal case, so the subject's request (not made via OTRS, btw) doesn't come into play.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i've asked him to verify identity with OTRS and tried to explain the procedures. I personally lean towards marginal notability but could be convinced otherwise. I originally didn't think so and just planned to blow it up so that I/others could start anew but too many of the sources on the article ended up being press releases/essential copies of press releases/fluff pieces/blogs etc that I through up my hands and decided I needed some more eyes on it. I'm not totally sure I am comfortable saying he is notable "simply" because of his position as CIO of the FCC but it's possible his work has touched enough of the wider field to be so notable. James of UR (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 09:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 09:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * TNT Delete and redirect OR Delete and start a stub anew with new editors to clarify since there seems to be some debate, with the open caveat that I am the article's subject and have not been involved in past edits, though I have monitored them and they went to a level of detail I was not comfortable with personally. If the decision is to keep, Clpo13 suggested something called TNT? Could that be at least done out of respect for my own privacy to start a new? Thank you for your consideration. Northernva (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC) One update with the note I am article's subject and have not been involved in past edits, I am all for openness and differences in opinion. If the decision is to keep can I ask that TNT or something be applied to start the article anew with one or more fresh editors perhaps using some consolidated version of the past? I watched edits or comments on edits in the history that got too into details, like such as my wife for example, who no doubt is she central and core to my personal life just not a topic for a public article and we both would prefer it to be actions and activities if possible? It has never been my goal to be the target of such debates and I prefer to focus on "getting stuff done" that matters. Thank you for your consideration. Northernva (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Federal Communications Commission. With all due respect to the article's subject (and assuming good faith that the requester is, in fact, the article's subject), I believe that given the position he holds/held and the amount of coverage that results from that means that, while we might not want notability, it is, sometimes, something that is unavoidable. That said, the coverage at the target mentioned there appears to be appropriate for his role with the FCC, and it would seem to be a reasonable compromise between the desire not to be notable and the unavoidable fact of notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable; and "deletion is not clean-up". I'm also unclear as to why the nominator has blanked the article. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Although I understand Mr. Bray's discomfort with the article, he is far too notable to delete.  He is a man who is in the public eye, and who makes decisions on issues with national and international policy impact.   Unfortunately, this makes his Wikipedia page a target for people who disagree with him on issues.  This, obviously, is one of Wikipedia.s endemic problems.  Deletion is not the answer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect as proposed by The Bushranger. There are a lot of CIOs in the world, some of whom have done great work. It doesn't mean that they should be listed here. Some of those initiatives are maybe worth an entry in more relevant articles, perhaps with a reference to Mr Bray. But a whole article seems excessive. In addition, earlier drafts looked suspiciously like puff piecees. Shritwod (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I hope that anyone voting to keep the article is not doing so despite the situation - being that there is a COI with the article, potential sockfarm, and now the subject of the article requesting deletion and maybe trying to keep the article to prove a point. Yes, I am assuming good faith, but I am also tackling the elephant in the room so sorry if anyone is offended. Saying that he is "clearly notable" and "in the public eye" is not good enough as there is no notability guideline that states someone is notable based on being in the "public eye." With that, I will say that he has coverage in many reliable sources. However, many of it is quotes, passing mentions, podcasts or webcasts. Nothing that I believe would qualify him under WP:GNG, but I will abstain for the moment to see if anyone is able to show me otherwise. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed my vote to delete from a simple comment. I guess my statement fell on def ears as I continue to see keep votes without rationale. Speechless at this point. Have at keeping an article that no one can show meets notability guidelines. I'm out! --CNMall41 (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "clearly notable" is a perefectly good reason to keep an article; and neither an alleged CoI, nor an alleged sockfarm, are reasons to deletes an article that otherwise meets GNG Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've emailed per the instructions provided to verify my identity as the subject and will reiterate I prefer not to be notable and the TNT option with a redirect is welcomed. I have not been involved in past edits. If the community thinks I should be, then Varent's suggestion here of a TNT and few short sentences is preferred. While it is not fun to have one's life debated at length I also realize this is about the community reaching its own conclusion. Focusing on "getting stuff done" is what matters to me which is why I initially requested a speedy deletion. Thank you for your consideration. Northernva (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Update: I have emailed twice and stand-by to verify who I am; also the suggestion made by John Nagle on my talk page of this version  is acceptable if it could address concerns that the current history of the existing main page contains details that are disconcerting from an identity theft or misuse standpoint and in my role I've tried to focus on the work getting done and not about me. This is why Clpo13's suggested TNT and delete or TNT and just the basics is preferable. I have emailed to verify my identity, let me more if I can do? Thank you for your help. Northernva (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is clearly notable, and a U.S. Government official with a reasonably high profile, by his own choice and actions. He has substantial coverage in Forbes, and the Huffington Post . He has 120K Twitter followers. That's a public figure. John Nagle (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think his notability is being a social media celebrity. If anyone with 120K followers is notable, I would be close to qualifying for notability. The Forbes and Huffington Post articles are both interviews or transcripts of interviews. How does that amount to notability? Despite being Forbes and Huff Post - both of which are reliable - these are still interviews which are not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep he's received a vast amount of trade press coverage. This isn't even close to being a borderline case.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, a keep vote without rationale. Can you show me where the guideline is for someone being notable for having "a cast amount of trade press coverage" is? --CNMall41 (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The rationale is "he's received a vast amount of trade press coverage." This meets WP:GNG, it's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
 * Federal Computer Week, "FCC's CIO started young"
 * Federal Times, "FCC CIO leads an IT 'intervention'"
 * Federal Computer Week, "Federal 100: David A. Bray"
 * WashingtonExec, "FCC CIO Dr. David Bray’s ‘Start-up Mentality Culture’ Connects People, Pipes to Modernize Agency’s 207 Legacy IT Systems"
 * Washington Post, "Inside the collapse of the FCC’s digital infrastructure — and the rush to save it"
 * fedscoop, "Inside the FCC's risky IT overhaul: FCC is in the midst of a total IT overhaul as its legacy systems have resulted in very public failures. Can David Bray lead the agency out of its antiquated past?"
 * ABC affiliate WJLA's show Government Matters, "Bray: 'Right now I'm focusing solely on the FCC'"
 * IT World Canada, "The FCC’s CIO uses a D.H. Lawrence poem to explain our digital future"
 * 1to1Media,"David Bray, CIO, Federal Communications Commission: Bray has modernized the customer journey and created transparency by moving to the cloud."
 * GovTransformer, "GovTransformer: FCC to Go “All In” with the Cloud"
 * Nextgov, "Need a Use Case for Cloud? Look to FCC"
 * The Enterprisers Project, "Why everyone must play a part in improving IoE privacy"
 * FierceGovernmentIT, "NASA, FCC, USDA lean on open source to propel IoT forward, DoD less so"
 * Carrt.ca, "CTS 2015: FCC CIO sees even bigger changes coming "
 * CIO, "Tips from a day in the life of 4 CIOs"
 * (This list doesn't include a large number of interview style articles.)--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect if that is the wishes of the article's subject. We should always "Do No Harm" is borderline cases. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please read comments carefully, contra to CNMA1141, I see no one arguing that social media followers confer notability, although, certainly,  this:  in the Washington Post of Bray's job performance highlighting his social media presence does establish notability.  Also, CNMall41 refutes a user who cited  media coverage of Bray in the trade press as "vast"  (actually CNMall41 mis-cites (typo?) the assertion as "cast") In fact, the vast, or, at least, intense and continuous coverage of Bray's work inthe trade press does confer notability.  If the problem is Bray or an admirer using sockpuppets to promote Bray, rather than policy opponents using sockpuppets to attack him, that can be dealt with.  Deletion of a notable figure is not the solution.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out my misspelling which doesn't really have bearing on the discussion. But since you brought it up, it's "in the," not "inthe" as you stated above and "contrary" as opposed to "contra" but that is besides the point. As far as the "trade press," saying something does not make it true. I requested to be shown the guideline that allows us to determine notability based on such assertion but have yet to have anyone produce anything other than an opinion. A person is only a "notable figure" if there is coverage - in-depth, reliable, and independent (see WP:42) - that supports them being a notable figure. Being in a notable position in real life does not make them notable for Wikipedia. If that was the case, we can create articles for all prior CIOs. The Washington Post article is an interview which should never be used for notability. If the subject requested to have his article "kept," I am sure you would use such rationale to delete it saying that the subject only has passing mentions and interviews. This whole thing looks like a classic case of WP:POINT.--CNMall41 (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and Redirect I concur that the argument for notability is on that margin edge of being notable and a courteous collapsing is reasonable.  I would note (particularly in the direction of the subject of the article) that it would take a few controversial or very popular opinions to push over into definite notability and inclusion, and therefore wish to indicate that the "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" should not be used short of a exact copy of the text going forward. I'd rather have the debate full out every time as the standards could raise or lower and the BLP's own actions could raise or lower their notability. Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect Close enough to the borderline that we should respect the Subject's wishes, which have now been confirmed via OTRS . While arguably a public figure, I think we should still treat it as a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE situation. Monty  845  19:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep A number of sources which are reliable and independent have significant coverage of him, and he is an influential and high-ranking government official. He satisfies WP:BIO. He is certainly not a person outside the public sphere, a child or some unfortunate individual known for one crime or one mistake,or for having some ailment, so "do no harm" hardly applies. Wikipedia is not  a vanity publication or voluntary directory, so we do not base our decisions about having an article on whether the person wants an article. Edison (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Being a CIO doesn't make you notable, and it's marginal whether he passes WP:GNG. So, per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, it should be deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to define this high government official whose decisions and administrative style are discussed in major publications as a "non-public figure," which is what WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE specifies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The relevant part of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is this: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." He is not "relatively unknown", he is not a "non-public figure". The stub (as it stands right now) has more text in the 25 sources than in the actual article text. There is no valid reason for someone this prominent to have their article deleted. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 06:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE seems to apply here.  For it not to apply, there would have to be sources indicating enough notability that we can ignore that.  I am not convinced by what has been posted so far that he has enough notability for that.  The sources obviously do show some notability, but the criteria we are supposed to use are harsher than just "has some notability".  Note that Edison's claim that "we do not base our decisions about having an article on whether the person wants an article" is not true; it contradicts BLPREQUESTDELETE. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think what we have here is a person who is notable amongst his peers but not notable in general. His work, achievements and publications are of interest perhaps if you are a CIO or CTO of a large US organisation, but that does not merit an article here IMO. It's hardly as if the FCC is that large an organisation anyway - with only 1720 employees and a $388m budget it is much smaller than even the smallest Fortune 500 company, and Wikipedia doesn't even list the CEO of most of those organisations, never mind the CIO/CTO. Obviously the FCC is of some notability in itself, but individual senior officers within it are generally not. Shritwod (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment only, many thanks Shawn for the note however I am *not* a politician. Happy to be deleted. I am neither politically elected nor appointed, I got my job by applying via the open competition approach available to all U.S. individuals via USAjobs. I am a career senior executive and thus do not need to be listed as politician-related discussions; thank you. For those unfamiliar with U.S. non-political senior execs, we translate the political will of all parties to the career workforce while at the same time not picking a specific political side, which means we're often the punching bag of all sides to "get stuff done" which is why I'm happy to remain not-notable in my role. Hope this helps. Northernva (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2016 (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.