Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Ryan (FBI agent)


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Jack Ryan (FBI agent)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Does not meet notability guidelines nf utvol (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Some sources that may indicate some notability. http://books.google.com/books?id=IXIHi77EBZoC&pg=PA372&dq=Jack+Ryan+(FBI+agent&hl=en&ei=gNbdS825BIv4-AafsOGhBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Jack%20Ryan%20(FBI%20agent&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=NOcDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA16&dq=Jack+Ryan+(FBI+agent&hl=en&ei=gNbdS825BIv4-AafsOGhBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Jack%20Ryan%20(FBI%20agent&f=false So the articel may need work, but I'm not sure this is exaclty unnotable.Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This seems to be almost totaly unsourced, it needs a lot of work.Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Suuuuuuuuuuper non-notable.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 20:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep the book and the magazine make two examples of non-trivial coverage in secondary sources, which is what's important here (regardless of how suuuuuuper it is or not, thank you so much for your highly cogent argument JBsupreme). I would agree this individual is probably not VERY notable, but according to wikipedia's guidelines, he barely passes WP:N -Markeer


 * Keep. The book seems to be an interview (which isn't exactly independent, but is in-depth). But in addition to the detailed Mother Jones article, see also:
 * THE F.B.I. ON THE DEFENSIVE ONCE AGAIN, The New York Times, May 15, 1988, by Sanford J. Ungar
 * Balking Agent Loses Appeal, The New York Times, February 3, 1988
 * Judge Backs F.B.I. in Dismissal of an Agent, The New York Times, January 24, 1991, Thursday, Late Edition - Final, Section A; Page 20; Column 5; National Desk, 178 words, AP
 * Pacifist ex-FBI agent loses court fight, United Press International, January 23, 1991, Wednesday, BC cycle, Domestic News, 323 words
 * Judge Upholds FBI Firing of Pacifist Agent, The Associated Press, January 22, 1991, Tuesday, AM cycle, Domestic News, 297 words, By BILL VOGRIN, Associated Press Writer
 * JOHN (JACK) RYAN, WHO ADOPTED PACIFISM, The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon), January 11, 1991 Friday, Pg. D07
 * FBI: No Room for Pacifists, The Associated Press, January 10, 1991, Thursday, AM cycle, Domestic News, 561 words, By BILL VOGRIN, Associated Press Writer
 * Pacifist Former FBI Agent Suing to Get His Job Back, The Associated Press, January 10, 1991, Thursday, PM cycle, Domestic News, 531 words, By BILL VOGRIN, Associated Press Writer
 * FBI: No Room for Pacifists, The Associated Press, January 10, 1991, Thursday, AM cycle, Domestic News, 621 words, By BILL VOGRIN, Associated Press Writer
 * Judge to rule in pacifist former FBI agent case, United Press International, January 10, 1991, Thursday, BC cycle, Domestic News, 528 words
 * Federal Agency Upholds Firing of FBI Agent Who Disobeyed Orders, The Associated Press, July 14, 1988, Thursday, AM cycle, Domestic News, 294 words, By BILL VOGRIN, Associated Press Writer
 * Ex-agent disillusioned with FBI policies, The San Diego Union-Tribune, February 15, 1988 Monday, OPINION; Pg. B-7, 1387 words, ANN LEVIN, Ann Levin is a Tribune staff writer.
 * Fired FBI Agent Negotiating For Reinstatement, The Associated Press, December 2, 1987, Wednesday, PM cycle, Domestic News, 537 words, By BILL VOGRIN, Associated Press Writer
 * FBI Agent, Fired over Work-Conviction Conflict, Seeks Reinstatement, The Associated Press, December 1, 1987, Tuesday, AM cycle, Domestic News, 652 words, By BILL VOGRIN, Associated Press Writer
 * (Text available via LexisNexis.) TheFeds 06:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * KeepOK we have lots of sources. Seems that he is slightly notable. The article need a lot of work but does pass.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2010 (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.