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. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Porter Barry[edit]

This person is not significant, the references are not reliable, and the content belongs in Fox News Channel controversies if anywhere. Bytebear (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Generally unreferenced - only references are a Youtube video and a link on Arianna Huffington's page - and last I checked, Ms. Huffington is mostly big on her editorial pieces. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. Appears to have no notability outside of the incident. EJF (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A single recent news incident does not make Porter Barry notable and I didn't find much on the life and times of Porter Barry to justify a Wikipedia article. If the confrontation were notable, the information should be in an article The 2008 confrontation of Bill Moyers or something of that nature. -- Bebestbe (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WPBLP1E. Keep if evidence of his being involved in other public shenanigans is presented. Gamaliel (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources added in this edit are a start, but not yet enough to sustain an article. I suggest adding him to the Factor article, and a new article on Barry can be created if enough information on him is discovered. Gamaliel (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. MrMurph101 (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E. This could be mentioned in The O'Reilly Factor article if need be or another relevant article. MrMurph101 (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The O'Reilly Factor is one of the famous evening news shows in US with over 2 million viewers and Porter Barry is one of the producers of the show. In other words, Shouldnt a producer of a show watched by over 2 million Americans deserve a page in Wikipedia? Well, I agree that the article lacks info and in this regard everyone is welcome to contribute to make it a complete article.Docku (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources have been updated to include both Fox News and MSNBC. Per the valid suggestion of User:Gamaliel, "evidence of (Barry's) being involved in other public shenanigans" has been included. 128.227.1.133 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Half of the references you added as evidence didn't even mention Barry. The others only referenced him as related to the show as staff (one was the IMDB entry for Fox News). Bytebear (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Bytebear. There are two references added by the anonymous user which has info where Barry interviewing Syracuse University professor and the abortion doctor. I would suggest you not remove those citations until a decision about this issue is made. Thanks.Docku (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A calculated media ambush of a mid-tier pundit is barely real news, let alone encyclopedic. Merge any referenced material to The O'Reilly Factor, the only place this has significance. --Dhartung | Talk 22:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the Wikipedia "biography" on Porter Barry would seem to qualify as "a calculated media ambush of a mid-tier pundit." The keep position seems to be "Let's use the media Wikipedia to get revenge on this guy Barry by listing 'evidence of (Barry's) being involved in other public shenanigans'." Great. Wikipedia's POV material on O'Reilly is in the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly article, so the material may fit there, if anywhere. -- Bebestbe (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That qualifies to be called an attack. Would the delete then mean helping Porter Barry?? I agree though that the material could fit in Criticism of Bill O'Reilly as well.Docku (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yout last edit added the following statement: "Barry is known for his confrontational interviews." Is he? Is there a single third party reference to Barry being known for confrontational interviews? Is he "known" for anything? Bytebear (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have changed the wording as suggested.Docku (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the wording. It's the lack of a third party reference. You have to find someone reliable who has said that Barry is known as an interviewer, controversial or not. Has anyone written anything about this man specifically at all? Bytebear (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let it be on record. The article has references including FOX news website, MSNBC website and youtube video which are sufficient enough (in my opinion) to prove that he works with Bill O Reilly, he has interviewed Bill Moyers, Nancy Cantor and George Tiller. These are the references

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_2IZT4VgDY -Youtube video of the interview with Bill Moyers,

http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/09/1126562.aspx -MSNBC,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355898,00.html -Porter Barry interviews chancellor of Syracuse University,http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281861,00.html -Porter Barry interviews abortion doctor. Also for the record, three of the references were added by someone else.

If you guys think this is not sufficient for a wikipedia article, pls go ahead and delete it. I am out of here.Docku (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is still not enough info for a stand-alone bio. As Gamaliel pointed out, this can go in the O'Reilly Factor article and if enough material can be produced a bio could be spun out. Also, while not policy or even a guideline at the moment, wikipedia shouldn't create original biographies which may be a form of original research. In other words, this individual shouldn't have a bio until one has already been published. MrMurph101 (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Single purpose article meant only to disparage Porter. Someone would have to show that this incident is somehow more notable than similar type incidents done in the media industry. Think Michael Moore who does this kind of stuff frequently, yet it isn't the focal point of his article. Arzel (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.