Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Dyne

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. One two three... 04:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dyne

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable business person, unreferenced BLP, passing mentions and press release blurbs are all that I am finding on line. Perhaps someone else will have better luck. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I don't think he meets WP:BASIC. If he were mentioned substantially in sources like this cited in the article, I might change my mind, but so far all I've found is raw press releases, automatically-generated or self-generated profile pages, and so on. bobrayner (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I think he does meet the WP:BASIC. I did some more research and he is clearly an important player in the Skype world which is now a trend setter. Over 14 references to him in the Skype S-1 document filed with the SEC and a Director of Skype. [1] Also verified signature to the master settlement agreement in the Skype - Joltid Litigation that lead to the control of Skype back to founders [2] Jojorev (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are primary sources. I think what we need to establish notability would be coverage in 2ndary sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is mentioned in multiple articles including [3] in other capacities. Clearly a major behind the scenes player. See also under [4] and in our own Wikipedia Management Buyout definition and example. see under [5] -- Droppinghunter (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. 2nd relist rationale: BLP still not sourced properly. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Droppinghunter, those refs appear to be passing mention, not significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage, [6] [7] are the only refs here that are half-way usable, but more than two sentences would be a stretch. Hits are basically profile entries or short mentions of the same fact. Being "important player" does not by itself warrant an article. The above keeps have not to me demonstrated any significant, reliable, secondary sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is clearly a high level figure. And while the references are a little light, if the unreferenced text is correct we should definitely have this guy. @Nuujinn While passing mention might not enough for a standard blp I can AGF on this one, but if nothing changes in a few months, then I would change my mind if you renomed. Outback the koala (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The unreferenced material is the problem and it would need to go--the current sources are press releases and primary sources, a dead page, and a page that doesn't mention the subject. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2010 (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.