Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy 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 keep. John254 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Dorothy Byrne

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced WP:BLP, the individual is well known only because of one controversial decision - that is not what Wikipedia biographies are for, of course. WP:BLP1E and past WP:COATRACK issues resulting in complaints. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Ms Dorothy Byrne is famous not just for a controversial decision to appoint a foreign head of state to make a broadcast. She is the head of News services at a British television channel. Channel Four might not be the biggest UK channel, but it does have a substantial share of the market and its news service is well respected. The person in control of a major UK enterprise is well worthy of note, and consequently her details will be of interest to those people who follow current affairs. Ms Byrne is noted in Who’s Who, a text devoted to brief descriptions of famous people in the UK. There are two texts in the UK who collect details of eminent and famous personages, The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, exclusively for the dead, and Who’s Who, mostly pertaining to the living. If your name is in one of these tomes, you are ex officio famous. As Ms Byrne is both important and famous, her page must be allowed to remain on this forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leightonmowbray (talk • contribs) 12:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is all well and good, but the article is utterly unsourced. This morning I removed an unsourced piece of speculation that she could lose her job over Iran's President giving the alternative Christmas address. If this article is to remain on Wikipedia then any details within it should be well sourced and accurately cited. Rumour, gossip, and idle speculation do not belong on Wikipedia. Leave them to The Sun and The Daily Mirror then, if you must regurgitate their drivel, make sure you say who said what. --Brian McNeil /talk 13:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As per Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions:
 * "In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion."
 * travb (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:COATRACK is a controversial essay only, as the essay template states at the top of this essay: "Heed them or not at your own discretion." travb (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google and Google news searches throw up plenty of coverage. Definitely seems notable. Article needs sourcing, but I don't see this as the function of AfD.--Michig (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable individual in her field, clearly, although like all 'real people' articles content must be properly sourced and NPOV. As regards the Xmas day 'alternative message' the annual slot has always been 'controversial' to an extent (that is the point of it, after all) and this one appears no more worrying about possible after-effects then any previous one, so the allegation was over-emphasised (and arguably shouldn't have appeared at all, imho). --AlisonW (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I don't think we're going to succeed with the claim of "one event": a google news search that tries to capture stories other than the Ahmadinejad affair produces quite a bit, here. I assume that the OTRS complaint comes from the statement that she invited him. What I have seen is that she defended inviting him; I doubt the invitation can be put on any one person, it was most likely a collective decision of some sort.  I suggest that sentence be removed, and then we insist that any effort to replace it be sourced in the usual way.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. As pointed out by Nomoskedasticity, the extensive independent news coverage about her does not support deletion based on WP:1E. Even though she is a news reporter, she seems also to be considerably notable in her own right.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It is true that anyone working in the news business (or politics) will leave a paper trail, or I guess it would be data trail. However the article now gives only basic information about her career since the "controversy" has been taken off. No claim to notability or in depth coverage by reliable sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See the Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions quote above. Please spend some time creating content, not deleting it. travb (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the article was poorly written. Just that Ms Byrne is not important enough that she has been discussed in any depth in secondary sources.Steve Dufour (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s. I have created a few articles, which were actually interesting to read and informative. If I say so myself. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep deletion argument is that there are no sources, which can easily be created (but not as easily as having something deleted). Notable individual, as per comments above. travb (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is badly in need of improvement in terms of balance, but, as pointed above, there does exist sufficient coverage of her unrelated to the Ahmadinejad episode to get past the BLP1E bar. Nsk92 (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep [probably notable even without this latest. And it just might have been enough, as its not tabloid fodder. I find it very hard to specify in closer words than that the distinction between what kind of one events merit deletion vs keeping, but if it involves a controversial event involving a major head of state, I think that's enough to being notable. DGG (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there an article on the incident? If not there should be. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. As head of news and current affairs of one of the major news sources in the UK the subject was obviously notable before this latest incident. Why do some people, when they see a problem, see deletion as the only solution? If there are issues with coatracking then fix them by editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you asked. I strongly dislike articles which are obviously written with a hostile intent towards the subject.  I also dislike articles which are written "upside down."  That is the article is really about an incident, in this case the invitation of that bad guy controversial individual (I don't want to bother to look up his name) to speak on TV in the UK, but written as a biographical article about a person involved. Why not write it about the incident?  That way you can put as much information and opinions as you like. You can also discuss any person's involvement as much as you like, if sourced of course. You do not have to look up trivial personal data about the person to make the article look balanced.  And you would attract less attention from the BLP police. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at the article history. It clearly wasn't created in response to this incident, because it was created nine months earlier. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Head of news and current affairs at a major national television channel seems sufficiently notable, even aside from the recent news coverage. I note, for example, that The Guardian ran an in-depth interview with her on the state of British television back in 2007. She also seems to have raised controversy with the C4 programme Baby Race which she commissioned eg see .Espresso Addict (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   —Espresso Addict (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2008 (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.