Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Byron

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 and redirect‎ to Impact of the Music of the Spheres World Tour#Affair scandal in the US. To close this discussion, I have to give more weight to policy-based arguments, since WP:AFDs are not votes and I find that keep !voters have not put forth arguments to disprove that WP:BLP1E applies. Rather, what I manly see from them are WP:VAGUEWAVEs and dogmatic assertions of notability. Salvio giuliano 13:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Byron

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Andy Byron (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)

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]
Comment AI is a content generation tool that would absolutely, when prompted, generate a response that includes a different viral incident based on superficial similarities between the two incidents. However, unlike this viral incident, the Will Smith slap thing demonstrated sustained coverage over a year.--Mpen320 (talk) 14:32, 25 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 will guess that it was an accident, but please do not remove my opinion. Thank you. Forthepeople12 (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily meets GNG. Byron is notable not only due to the scandal but also as a former CEO and baseball player. Timd21 (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Astronomer_(company). I searched google with time restriction to before the kiss cam event and did not see independent sources with WP:SIGCOV. This leaves the article at best a 1E. However, this event is unlikely to have significance beyond the impact to the company. As far as notability is concerned it is in the news cycle right now but will fall out. Therefore WP:BLP1E indicates this should be deleted. However there are reliable sources here and there claims should be reflected with due weight on the company page.
Czarking0 (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/rederect into an article about the incident. Sushidude21! (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - Are we going to maintain articles for all the 10000 minor CEOs of relatively minor companies? He personally is not known for anything that is especially newsworthy byond other normal individuals, outside of the drama. It's also not likely he will be getting a public function of any public significance any time soon (not that he had one before). 82.139.102.194 (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As other stated Byron was known as a CEO and baseball player in addition to the Coldplay kiss cam scandal. There are plenty of other articles on CEOs of various sized companies including certain scandals, deaths, crimes, etc. The scandal is all over the news and social media making this a big event and showing that much more private info for Byron is out in public now. He literally had to resign as CEO for this scandal. This scandal was a result of Byron's own actions. This article should be kept, especially with new information coming out.
Obviously the page was marked for deletion solely due to the scandal, otherwise it would remain up. Deleting the entire article is completely unnecessary and certain parts could be removed (although I think nothing should be deleted). 2603:3027:31F:200:C076:BC40:E7A8:D61B (talk) 13:44, 29 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 – I have struck out my previous !vote based on new coverage. I now think this is likely notable enough to be kept. I do think however the article about Astronomer itself may need to be merged with this one. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:59, 24 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]
  • Keep: If he was the former CEO of a notable billion-dollar company (Astronomer) and also former CEO of another significant notable company (Fuze) and former senior executive of other significant companies (Cybereason and Lacework) and also a former professional baseball player (for the Clarksville Coyotes) and had not been caught in a compromising position on a kiss cam, a thinly-sourced article about him filled with entrepreneur puffery would probably sit quietly on Wikipedia without being nominated for deletion. The kiss cam incident makes him more notable, not less, and has improved the availability of sources about the other aspects of his biography. This discussion is about Andy Byron, not Kristin Cabot. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - media coverage and notability suggests this topic should be kept. EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ```Keep``` - There's enough media coverage and the situation is notable enough for the article to be kept CnekYT.

(talk) 20:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 02:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's stunning to me how few of the Keeps cite policy. If the article is kept, then WP:BLP is the policy to follow. Which means we should "avoid misuse of primary sources"...and the one and only reliable source anyone has provided from before this so-called scandal is a Cincinnati Inquirer piece that is a brief interview, i.e. a primary source. Everything else in a RS about this guy pertains to the incident. If that isn't WP:BLP1E I don't know what is. "Oh, he's a CEO and a billionaire..." If you think money makes people notable, go work for Elon. As for merging, I don't see how the incident-heavy article could be merged to the tour or the company without violating WP:DUE. We can re-create this article as a stub if people are still talking about him in a year or two. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Very much a 1E situation. Zero coverage I can find from before the event, I gave up in Gnews... Newspapers don't have anything about this person, the name is rather common. Nothing in Gbooks. Was unknown until about a month ago, for the event. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The meme is more notable than the people in the kisscam. Still too early to create an article about it, but it has more coverage. And even items about Byron are about the photo/event/meme, not him. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP1E. He wasn't notable before the incident, and it's the only thing that confers notability to date. Ira Leviton (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

He has became a notable person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.30.146.13 (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (revised !vote): The company achieved unicorn status prior to his arrival. Thank you for pointing that out, Hmr. Green Montanan (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Np! Hmr (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Byron&oldid=1303858268"