Deletion of John Battelle

Comment: A couple more sources and interviews? And again, I found these in just a few minutes of Google News Archives/Google Books, with very little research. He's interviewed here in the ''Washington Post'': http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/federateds-battelle-doubts-bubble-in-technology-stocks/2011/05/20/AFThe37G_video.html "Federated's Battelle Doubts Bubble in Technology Stocks". The ''Post'' is undoubtedly a reliable secondary source per , and having his opinion solicited on the future of tech stocks says to me he's a player. He's also interviewed for an entire chapter as an authority on blogging business and architecture in this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=S2_bAAAAMAAJ&q=%22john+battelle%22&dq=%22john+battelle%22&hl=en&ei=rXblTdThEqjW0QHWtamvBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAg. ''Bloomberg'' reviews Battelle's own book ''The Search'' positively and calls it required reading here http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSfIE6uTqbDA&refer=culture. This doesn't include interviews that he's taken, or glancing mentions that could fill out the article now that we've more than met the requirement for  of his qualifications. I'm also going to have to dispute the previous sources being primary. A primary source would be something said by John Battelle or his company, such as a press release or direct quotes from his book. Information sourcing from O'Reilly, ''PC World'', TechCrunch or other nonaffiliated news sources is definitely secondary coverage. —&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS)

Comment: They don't amount to much.  Most of them mention him only in passing, and are not about him.  Most of them are primary, rather than the required secondary.   in terms of  has not been satisfied
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)