Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Rhode Island

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Rhode Island. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Rhode Island|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Rhode Island. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Rhode Island

[edit]

Andy Byron

[edit]
Andy Byron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pretty textbook WP:BLP1E. All of the sourcing in this article stems from a rather viral news story about him being caught on camera, apparently with a colleague and affair partner, rather than coverage indicating more lasting notability. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: AI would not mention the Will Smith's incident by itself! 2003:100:3700:3200:7846:874A:102F:EE58 (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will Smith was already a notable person before he slapped another notable person (at a notable awards show, no less). That's different than an otherwise non-notable person receiving a flurry of media attention just because of one event. Zzz plant (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: 2A00:FBC:E9BE:72AF:40D4:3434:164C:FC95 (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Andy Byron is not a historical figure, nor has he had any significant impact on society / history / humanity. There is no educational value to this article. No one ever heard of Mr. Byron until this "caught on camera" incident, let alone Kristin Cabot. They are just another in a long line of rich people getting caught in reprehensible situations. This is Wikipedia folks, not Jerry Springer. NiNzOmBiE (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every person on the planet has an impact on society/history/humanity.the educational value only increases with time. 2600:8805:190B:3100:4925:2ED6:6E13:C854 (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are three pre-scandal sources: Cincinnati Inquirer, The Information, and SiliconANGLE theCUBE. --2601:8C0:E00:A6A0:513D:8C8F:5FAF:8937 (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This topic in my opinion is worthy of a standalone article. GeorgeM2011(talk to me) | (My Edits) 18:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a textbook case of WP:BLP1E that clearly fails our standards for biographical articles of living persons. Byron has received coverage solely in connection with a single viral incident at a Coldplay concert, with no substantive biographical coverage existing independently of this event. The extensive media attention stems entirely from what amounts to internet voyeurism of a private moment that became a meme, not from any inherent notability of the subject himself.
Several Keep arguments fundamentally misunderstand WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BLP1E. Claims that "he was a CEO so he's notable" ignore that executive positions alone don't establish encyclopedic significance without substantial independent coverage of professional achievements. The argument that "people are searching for info" conflates temporary public curiosity with lasting notability - by this logic, every viral TikTok star would merit an article. The comparison to Will Smith is particularly flawed since Smith was already independently notable before his controversy, unlike Byron who lacks any pre-existing notability.
Keep voters citing WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV miss the crucial point that WP:BLP1E specifically addresses situations where coverage exists but stems from a single event. Having "enough media coverage" is meaningless when that coverage treats the subject as a temporary curiosity rather than examining their life, work, or achievements. The sources uniformly frame Byron as "the CEO caught on kiss cam" rather than providing biographical context that would justify a standalone article.
The "international coverage" argument actually strengthens the BLP1E case - the fact that global outlets covered this story demonstrates its viral nature rather than Byron's inherent notability. Viral incidents generate international coverage precisely because they're momentary spectacles, not because their subjects are encyclopedically significant. Similarly, arguments about "cultural flashpoints" and "lasting impact" are premature speculation unsupported by evidence of sustained interest beyond the initial news cycle.
A redirect to Impact of the Music of the Spheres World Tour#Affair scandal in the US serves readers searching Byron's name while maintaining WP:NPOV and biographical standards. This preserves encyclopedic value without creating a permanent biographical entry for someone whose fame will likely fade as quickly as viral content typically does. EditorSage42 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is notable enough. It’s the meme of the summer. It got widespread attention. There are sources to stuff he has done aside from be the internet meme Capriaf (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Him and his company weren’t even notable before the kiss cam incident. 173.80.249.175 (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is surprisingly well-documented and includes good sources for much of its information. It would be a grave violation of the third point in WP:BLP1E to throw away this great amount of information.
I see a lot of mentions of WP:BLP1E but let's not forget WP:BIO1E which is included in a hat note on WP:BLP1E. There's more than one reference for Byron's work so WP:BLP1E does not apply as that guideline calls for caution using only one significant event but this article contains more than one source covering multiple events.
The article in question is a well-formatted one with good introductory prose and explanations of his work, I don't think that warrants deletion, an article should only be deleted if it has minimal content and the subject is not notable, sources of information on Byron have been published so he is notable.
This article does not meet the first point of caution in WP:BLP1E either because sources are included that shows he has been covered in multiple sources not relating to the infamous recent incident. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/restructure this article into an article about the incident itself, not the person Andy Byron. As it stands, Byron himself isn’t very noteworthy outside this incident, but the incident will likely be noteworthy for a very long time. Perhaps a “background” section in this hypothetical article can include some general info about andy & the girl she was with, as well as about Astronomer company, and the general Coldplay concert, which all seem to already be here - we could just cut and paste. Since this has garnered lots of responses from public figures & commentators another section “Responses” can be dedicated to such. As of now only a section on the Impact of Coldplay Concerts article is dedicated squarely to the incident but Andy Byron can be repurposed into a different angle.
Jason Ingtonn (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is not entirely about the incident itself but the person himself. He's the former CEO of a company, a pretty popular one. Andy may not be a good person, but the article is about HIM. I don't see why it needs to be deleted. Haliey Welch was kept, so why can't he be kept? 203.221.99.107 (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure he was married, I think it was a de facto relationship? 121.209.152.160 (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the company article if kept, if not then to the section in the tour article – I've seen no convincing argument among the keep votes that this is not WP:ONEEVENT. BLP is serious business and most of what we "know" about this story is still just online speculation. If it ends up persisting as a meme with lasting notability such that it's described in RS we can create an article on that later, but there is no reason for us to be hosting this guy's resumé with a one-event hit piece attached. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per GNG. natemup (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not seem notable enough. Either delete or merge with what's already on the Impact of the Music of the Spheres World Tour wiki page. Viral memes dont seem notable enough for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:C181:EC40:3402:6EA7:634:9E20 (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: these guys already have had cruel privacy issues due to the meme, and Wikipedia shouldn't indulge into gossip. The first part of the page (Early life, Carreer) may seem real information, legitimating the existence of the page, but in fact the only reason why it exists is the meme. As a proof, you may notice that the page was created just two days ago: apparently, the life and carreer of mr. Byron were not reputed important enough to justify a page, until the scandal. And it is not a real scandal, allowing us to write about it: it is a private matter, and therefore not something of public interest. As a meme, it suffers from recentism: pretty sure that in a few days no one will ever remember about it, while for the privacy of the two interested people it will be very important that Wikipedia doesn't act as a loudspeaker forever. It will be, anyway, too late for their privacy since the fact is already famous, but we should at least help their right to be forgotten, since there is no real information here. ––Vides Ut Alta (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    agree! 74.58.192.9 (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite being a little relevant person, being part of the cybersecurity industry seems to me enough reason for them to keep the article. The small number of characters is a miserable reason to delete entire articles from Wikipedia. 186.18.65.250 (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)— 186.18.65.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Here is an independent source pre-dating the scandal. He played baseball...
https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=byron-001and 108.49.124.128 (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Listed from this AfD's talk page. Click [show] to see --🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Byron

The couple was wrong. Their alledged affair was exposed. It does not need to be a Wikipedia page. Do we write one for every person caught foung something wrong? 2601:156:8181:A470:7D8D:D0E:3712:5B1F (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He's a CEO of a billion dollar tech company- Hardly not noteworthy enough to have his own wikipedia. 2600:1005:B06D:9E5D:B035:D35C:A9DD:ABE9 (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm voting keep given the cultural phenomenon this incident has become and given that it's covered broadly in world wide news. This incident and the people involved have gotten too famous to justify this page's deletion. 161.216.164.91 (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree -- there could be a page about the kiss cam incident, but the standard for someone to get their own biography page is much higher than anything he's done. LinkedIn would have sufficed.
It's also worth noting that Kristin Cabot doesn't have a biography page here either, and nor should she. EricHirst (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: when I say "I agree" I mean I agree that the page should be deleted. I would encourage its authors to instead create a page on the incident itself. EricHirst (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Page

It happened. Oh, well. The truth is the truth. 2604:2D80:8F81:2700:490B:5AEB:FE5B:46CC (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m voting keep. Poor guy doesn’t need to be wiped off the earth for what he did. 2A02:C7C:5A59:7A00:453B:7621:D955:D305 (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m voting “keep.” The incident has become infamous enough to become a pop cultural phenomenon — parodied at professional sports matches, events, etc.
Astronomer is a notable-enough company to justify this page’s existence. Let it be inspiration for future people if they don’t want to end up like Byron. 24.191.68.23 (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m voting keep as well. It really happened and from what I saw, the page is factual. 2600:1700:2C80:3010:C870:7712:EE55:F4E1 (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Im voting keep 77.179.80.218 (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page. It's a great teaching tool to all those that think cameras don't see you. There should be no expectation of privacy when you're out in public. If you're that stupid to think you can have an affair in public and not get caught you certainly don't need to be the CEO of a company. Onemarble69 (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship is wrong.

Oligarchy, infidelity- And the consistent censorship of wikipedia is exactly what all this is about- Not holding up to Wikimedia Standards. 2600:1005:B06D:9E5D:B035:D35C:A9DD:ABE9 (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page.

You won't change anything by deleting this page. 123.20.126.116 (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidated source information

For people that consume information through the internet it is best to have a place where you have to have citations and others can fact check you and even remove infectual content or add factual content.

I vote to keep the page 2601:500:8701:7740:9021:FA0E:4C5A:E6E2 (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Why should these people have special treatment. You were in public and you can expect to be seen. 64.229.195.88 (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

This is part of history, why delete? 2603:7000:79F0:3790:39E3:A498:E2B2:A03A (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As many quotes have said, You can’t learn from history if you erase it. Jbattan (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- This situation has gained national to worldwide attention by various entities and memers to the point it CANNOT be ignored nor overlooked and that it caused so huge of a uproar, it will probably go down as one of the most controversial incidents in concert history. Also this directly references him as the main focus of the incident instead of making it a Coldplay topic other than setting. So request for deletion should be DENIED. rulerofall0 21:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Rhode_Island&oldid=1301450409"