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. The nominator has made a very large number of challenges to the provided sources. While many of the challenges have some foundation, they are not decisive arguments that mandate deletion. Some of the sources are interviews (this includes the Miami Herald, behind a paywall), which may make the source a primary source, albeit one published by an independent and reliable news organization. Such sources may be used to "cover straightforward statements of facts". I therefore find that the sourcing is of sufficient merit that WP:V and WP:NOR are fulfilled, and with many people arguing that the achievements of the person and the available media coverage is sufficient for the subject's notability, there is no consensus to delete based on that guideline either. Claims that Miami Herald articles are "clickbait" lack foundation. While the headline may aim to catch attention, I see no evidence that the headline is deceptive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lane Bess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Looked at the first two blocks. References are mostly interviews, PR, profiles and non-specific content urls. scope_creep^Talk 09:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Technology, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Is one of the first civilians to go into suborbital spaceflight. Is that not notable? Stravensky (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Stravensky: It is a nice article and potentially notable. If you use google book reference,s you may find something. WP:SECONDARY sources are the gold standard. Interviews aren't very good. Your articles are really well written, structured and formatted. Unfortunately the sourcing is not the best on here. Don't lose hope. I'll give you hand to see if it it is possible. See if a WP:HEYMANN can be found to upgrade the article. I will post a notice at WP:WIR to see if you can find other folk that may help. scope_creep^Talk 13:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have tried my best for years to contribute helpful info. I would hate to lose every page rather than just improve them. I appreciate your help and will look for more references. Stravensky (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message at Women in Red. Hope it helps. scope_creep^Talk 13:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was a women. Its a dude. scope_creep^Talk 13:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is probably been paid to go to space. I don't think it necessarily notable. We will see what the sources say. scope_creep^Talk 13:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• After reading this profile of Bess in the Miami Herald, I'd say that Bess doesn't really seem to be notable as a tech executive. There is some coverage regarding his appointment as CEO of DeepInstinct, but it's mostly press releases. Simply being a passenger of the New Shepard flight doesn't really contribute to his notability, in my opinion, but perhaps a redirect to New_Shepard#Flight_list would be better than deletion? Mooonswimmer 15:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mooonswimmer & @Scope creep One other thought is that Lane and his son Cameron were the first ever father and son duo to go into space together. That alone seems quite notable. Stravensky (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stravensky: It is very slim and is not really recognised as something that is considered notable unfortunately. scope_creep^Talk 22:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep I believe there is an article in "Advocate" about his son Cameron also being the first openly LGBT person to go to space. I can find more articles about the first father and son duo if helpful. I am not sure I understand why being the first father and son duo to go to space would not be notable? Regardless, he was CEO of both Zscaler and Palo Alto Networks, which are two of the largest cyber security firms in the United States, which also felt notable at the time I submitted the page. Stravensky (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stravensky: That is really slim as well. I never really agreed with the "first person to do something" thing, although is it used in here in various quarters in here, to the prove the person is notable but I always thought so it was so tenuous. We will take a look at the state of the references in the next couple of days. scope_creep^Talk 23:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can always add references but being the first is commonly accepted as notable (Neil Armstrong, etc). I don't understand the attack of these pages for sourcing if most people would agree they are notable. I have added references to other people's articles that had zero sources in order to improve their articles rather than nominating to just delete every article they wrote. Stravensky (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mooonswimmer I just added 6 other references I just found online, and deleted one sentence that sounded promotional. There is a WSJ interview and two additional profiles from Carnegie Mellon University among them. Stravensky (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lets examine the first two blocks of references. They seem very poor just a raw reading.

Ref 1 [1] It is a puff piece article, information taken from social media. It is not independent. It is non-rs

Ref 2 [2] This looks like fake website. Who is Lane Bess. It is non-rs.

Ref 3 [3] This is interview style article. It is not independent.

Ref 4 [4] This is a profile. It is not significant nor independent.

Ref 5 [5] News for donating £10million to Carnegie Mellon

Ref 6 [6] Same press-release as Ref 5

Ref 7 [7] Not significant. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Does prove he was a ceo.

Ref 8 [8] Paid for profile. Not independent.

Ref 9 [9] Passing mention.

Ref 10 [10] Press-release

Ref 11 [11] press-release

Ref 12 [12] States it is an CRN interview. Not independent.

Ref 13 Unable to locate this, but it is routine news of an appointment. Not significant.

Ref 14 [13] Press-release

Ref 15 [14] Profile.

Ref 16 [15] Passing mention.

I'm not going to do the rest. These are all press-release, passing mentionss and interviews and profiles, typical of a successful businessman. Per WP:THREE there is a not one single secondary source that comes to prove he is notable. Ref 3 comes close but it an interview. Meet Lane Bess article and its junk. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 17:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Understood on all of the above. The sources on going into space seem to be the top secondary sources about notability for being first parent/child pair to ever go into space together. Maybe the page should not mention as much of business side but notability for going into space seems clear. Stravensky (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of discussion here but few opinions for what should happen with this article beyond the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep, what do you think of a redirect to New_Shepard#Flight_list ? Mooonswimmer 18:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Agree with scope_creep's eval of sources in article above, nothing else presented for eval, WP:BLP require strong sourcing and this fails WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth No objection to a consensus redirect.  // Timothy :: talk  09:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A redirect is a good alternative to deletion in this case. scope_creep^Talk 09:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not to WP:POKEMON this, but List of space travellers by first flight currently lists 641 people, including Lane Bess, almost all of whom have a page here. If the Lane Bess page is deleted, he will be notable as one of the few space travellers not to have a page. Sure, at some point we'll have to stop creating a page for every person who boards a spaceflight, but I don't believe we're there yet. Owen× ☎ 10:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't dependent on the space flight, it is dependent on significant coverage and thats not there. scope_creep^Talk 10:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX: If you have WP:THREE sources that shows the person is notable, which we can all examine, then please post them? scope_creep^Talk 10:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, WP:THREE is an essay, not a policy. Besides, you've already listed more than three press releases that assert his notability, either as a CEO or as a space traveller. Owen× ☎ 13:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @OwenX: That is incorrect. Per the recent consensus that was established, WP:THREE is now seen as best practice and should be used in situations like this. So if you have three references that are decent? 14:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Some coverage about the space flight [16], [17]. Confirmation of who he is here (article about selling his house, but it gives some context [18] Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NYPost is non-rs. scope_creep^Talk 14:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

more of a confirmation of existence than anything. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Also flew into space with his child, the first pair to do so. [19]. Trivial mention, yes, but it's confirmation of the fact. This [20], [21] and this [22] all confirming the space flight. Last one gives a bit more context about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yip. I'm sympathetic. He will become an astronaut no doubt, he will be an astronaut. I'll take a look at these tommorrrow. scope_creep^Talk 17:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking at these references that have been posted:

  Ref 16 [23] This is an interview and it's PR.

  Ref 17 [24] In an interview, Bess states: This is interview and is not independent.

  Ref 18 Non-rs. NY Post is non-rs.

  Ref 19 [25] This is affiliated news. PR and an interview. It states its in the article.

  Ref 20 [26] This is clickbait that taken the story from social media. It not reliable.

  Ref 21 [27] This also takes the details from social media to create the article. It is really lazy. It is not reliable nor independent.

  Ref 22 Can't view.

These references are the exact same low-quality PR, clickbait and interviews along with social media driven articles. It states in WP:BLP. Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. . None of these genuine valid sources. There is a huge because its all PR driven. In WP:BIO, there is three criteria for notabilty. This person fails all of them. scope_creep^Talk 15:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 18 is from WSJ but not reliable? Reference 23 is from Miami Herald and though it is an interview, it also proves notability and is from a reliable news source. The systematic urge to delete any page I had written (before checking all the references) seems to me to be the motive here, not an objective desire to improve Wikipedia. Stravensky (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 18 above is non-rs. Interviews don't prove notability per long established consensus. scope_creep^Talk 23:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 18 in the article is him talking wich makes it WP:PRIMARY. More of the same. scope_creep^Talk 23:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia" -- I would suggest the Miami Herald is reputable, as is Wall Street Journal. Stravensky (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator seems to be the only person determined to delete article, and he has been determined on nominating several other pages written by me in the past 6 years as you can see in contribution history. Stravensky (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]