Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Kinsella (journalist and tech entrepreneur) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Cunard's work is once again excellent, and is directly speaking to the heart of the deletion rationale provided. In 10 days, his comments and sources were not analysed or refuted, therefore I have no choice to close this discussion as if they are default accepted as meeting GNG/RS etc. On that basis, there is no alternative way for me to close this discussion than a keep/ncs close, and given the fragmented nature of the discussion, I believe no consensus is best. Daniel (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

James Kinsella (journalist and tech entrepreneur)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Supposed BLP with no BLP references. First eight references are anything but. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. 3 socks in the last Afd and it was corrupt. References have not been improved for a BLP.  scope_creep Talk  15:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG as a strong WP:PROMO exercise. KidAd  •  SPEAK  23:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons cited last month at Articles for deletion/James Kinsella (journalist and tech entrepreneur). Notability is not transitory.  See Notability is not temporary 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What has notability got to do with it, when there is no references to prove it is a BLP. Not one BLP reference is present.    scope_creep Talk  22:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Last AfD was gamed by two sockfarms (Brandon Lapin SPI and some related to SpareSeiko SPI). I wouldn't consider it as a precedent. MarioGom (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As the closer of the last AfD, I would agree that this should be considered anew and independently from the last AfD due to the large number of now-blocked socks that were in that AfD. Of course, that does not preclude an editor from repeating the same arguments if they still find them to be valid. — MarkH21talk 00:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The previous AfD was closed with a very clear consensus of Keep. Even if you discard Lapin's votes, you still had several other Keep votes, and good solid arguments for notability, wothout a single Delete vote.  This is a clear, deliberate, bad-faith violation of WP:BEFORE, you cannot claim that there is no evidence for notability when the prior AfD cited multiple reasons for notability.  As I pointed out in the previous AfD If the article itself is factually correct, then the subject must be notable. Former Vice President at Microsoft, President of MSNBC.com, Chairman and CEO of World Online, Chairman and CEO of Interoute Communications, etc. Look, even if he was a figurehead (and I see no reason to assume this), simply holding those roles should have generated significant reliable sources about the subject. And I see that at least one of those companies, World Online, appears to have been involved in some sort of controversy around the time of the dot-com bust, which ought to have generated even more coverage and thus more RS. In addition to the sources already cited, it may be worth looking through the relevant articles on those other companies to see if they contain further good sources that mention Mr. Kinsella. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See this: If the article itself is factually correct, then the subject must be notable How does that even make sense. It is absurd and contentious and mostly meaningless. Please do not post up anywhere again. It is meaningless.    scope_creep Talk  21:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you care to strike and rephrase that remark in a civil manner? I apologize if the meaning was unclear, but what I was trying to say is that if this individual has held those positions, if the basic biographic details are correct, then the subject almost certainly passes GNG.  You are welcome to disagree with my assertion, and I would welcome a civil discussion of how to interpret GNG in the context of Mr. Kinsella's accomplishments, and compare sources, etc.  What you are not welcome to do is to tell me, or any other editor, please do not post up anywhere again.  I will AGF and consider that you may be having a bad day, but this behavior is not acceptable. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry if it a bit harsh. It is a bit harsh. In any article, there need to be some kind of standout information that makes the person special somehow. A person doing their day job, doesn't automatically make them notable, even if they are a president of very large company. There is subtle distinction there. In this category, of being president, then there is probably at least 3 million people in the US who are presidents of some company, and a minority of the say 5-10% are presidentd of large to very large companies, so that 10% as an example, is 30,000. That alone is huge figure, when but combined with population of the earth, we are global encyclopedia, and everybody is equal, it probably close to 3 million mark, as an example, who are presidents of sizable organisation. It could NGO's, a goverment organisation, a quango, a gangster organisation, so it a very very large category. So doing their day job, doesn't automatically make them notable. There is more too it.    scope_creep Talk  21:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is why it matters what the companies are. MSNBC.com I don't think needs much explanation.  World Online was a major European ISP covering 16 countries and millions of customers, but more important for the purposes of our article, it appears to have been involved in some scandals related to the turn of the century dot-com bubble and bust.  The Wikipedia article on that company mentions alleged insider trading, but doesn't seem to have much sourcing either.  Kinsella then went on to head Interoute, Europe's largest cloud service provider, before it was eventually sold for several billion dollars or euros.  So my point is simply given being in charge of such large and highly notable companies, and especially given a possible scandal at one of them, I find it difficult to believe that there are not sufficient sources out there.  Bear in mind that some of this occurred 20 years ago at a time when many online news sources were born and died, so it may require searching for offline sources as well.  To be clear, I am saying more than just a vague "there must be sources", but a more specific claim that there are good reasons to assume that these sources must exist.  This was discussed in the previous AfD, I was not the only one to make this point.  Nobody appeared to have objected to this assertion at that time. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is the reference to support the article. Does WP:V and WP:BIO not matter?   scope_creep Talk  21:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Saying that somebody is notable because they were VP or CEO of a company is not a policy-based argument. Plenty of high up corporate executives are not notable. This article appears to be built upon a WP:CITEBOMB to make the subject appear at a glance to be notable, but these sources do not cover the subject of this Wiki article in the level of depth that is required for GNG. I wonder if the people who said keep in the first nom looked closely at the sources or were fooled by the sheer number of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "Kinsella is identified only as a "programmer" on public-disclosure reports, but nationally he's known for developing Time Warner's Pathfinder Internet site, leading Microsoft's news venture with NBC and founding the Internet Content Coalition to self-regulate online publishers. A former newspaper reporter and editor at the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner and San Jose Mercury News, Kinsella has authored several books, including an analysis of the media's handling of the AIDS crisis."   The article notes: "James Kinsella is an unlikely champion for European technology. The 55-year-old American is a former Microsoft executive who previously ran MSNBC.com, the news website. Yet Mr. Kinsella, who has spent the last 15 years in Europe, is now backing Europe’s efforts to enforce its tough data privacy rules across the region — and potentially further afield."  <li> The entry notes: "James Kinsella is a celebrated media mogul, having earned a name for himself as the chairman of major media corporations such as Time Warner and MSNBC.com. He has held senior positions at other technology and media organizations such as World Online and Interoute." Sources from the entry:

Journalism Quarterly, autumn, 1990, James K. Hertog, review of Covering the Plague, pp. 623-624.

Journal of Health, Politics, Policy, and Law, spring, 1991, David C. Colby, review of Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media, pp. 176-181.

Library Journal, February 1, 1990, James E. Van Buskirk, review of Covering the Plague, p. 91.

Los Angeles Times Book Review, April 8, 1990, p. 5.

Nature, August 9, 1990, Don C. Des, review of Covering the Plague, p. 521.

New York Times Book Review, May 6, 1990, H. Jack Geiger, review of Covering the Plague, p. 23.

Publishers Weekly, January 19, 1990, Genevieve Stuttaford, review of Covering the Plague, pp. 92-93.

Washington Post Journalism Review, July-August 1990, Timothy Cook, review of Covering the Plague, p. 39. </li> <li>Book reviews:<ol> <li> The book review notes: "It is the argument of James Kinsella's flawed but fascinating book Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media that ignorance and prejudice prevented the mainstream media from covering the AIDS epidemic more 'promptly, vigorously, and forthrightly.'" </li> <li> The book review notes: "Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media, by James Kinsella. Rutgers University Press: 299 pages; $22.95. THE AIDS crisis may be the best-ever situation to apply the old adage: Hindsight is 20/20. ... The book is a sobering account of how this country and its people approached AIDS. It's part in-depth report, part editorial -- in every chapter." </li> <li> The book review notes: "Kinsella, former editorial-page editor at the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, provides a detailed, damning account of media insensitivity, indifference and ignorance, of media squeamishness and sensationalism throughout the early months and years of the AIDS epidemic." </li> <li> The book review notes: "The early years of the epidemic are much more clearly understood now than they were then. But the book is replete with egregious overstatements, like the claim that no one is writing, even today, about preventable tragedies afflicting the poor, minorities and the homeless." </li> <li> The abstract notes, "Reviews the book `Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media,' by James Kinsella." </li> <li> The abstract notes, "Reviews the book "Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media," by James Kinsella." </li> <li> This is a book review. </li> <li> The book review notes: "Unlike many media critics, James Kinsella understands that what gets reported and what gets ignored or twisted are almost always functions of individual journalists — not of a conspiracy by the newslords." </li> </ol> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow James Kinsella to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC) </li></ul> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on Cunard's work?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.