Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Grantham

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. This is one of those rare cases where WP:NOTAVOTE earns its keep. The arguments for deletion assert that the subject is not notable as an actor, per the criteria of WP:NACTOR, and also not notable as a criminal under the relatively stringent rules of WP:CRIME. The latter explicitly precludes "contemporaneous news coverage" being the sole source of a criminal perpetrator's notability, instead requiring "historic significance ... indicated by sustained coverage". Both of these guidelines reflect well-established consensus and have been invoked numerous times in deletion discussions.

There were a few different arguments for keeping the article:

  • He was said to be notable as an actor because he has had many roles and some of them are in undoubtedly notable projects (Diary of a Wimpy Kid and Riverdale were typical mentions). It was also pointed out that he won a couple of awards and was nominated for others. These were the most effective arguments for Keep, but they were rebutted by responses that the subject had typically minor roles that many non-notable actors have, not the "significant roles" called for by WP:NACTOR, and the awards for which he was nominated are niche awards for local areas and/or child performers.
  • He was said to be notable as a criminal based on news coverage of his arrest and conviction. These arguments uniformly ignored the "historic significance" criterion of WP:CRIME, which would be difficult to meet at this time given that he was just convicted last month.
  • There were many comments that asserted the article was interesting or useful – arguments that have been soundly rejected as irrelevant for keeping Wikipedia articles. It appears that many of these were drawn into the discussion by the news coverage mentioned above. While I assume that all of these comments were well-intentioned, I give them zero weight for analyzing the consensus for or against deletion.

Given the imbalance in how these arguments relate to our notability guidelines, I am making the uncommon finding of a consensus for the "minority" position (in terms of who showed up to comment on this page), because the Delete arguments clearly represent the established consensus about how notability is understood for actors and (especially) criminal perpetrators. RL0919 (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Grantham

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

Ryan Grantham (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)

Per WP:CRIME, convicted criminals should be the subject of a Wikipedia article if and only if (1) the victim is a renowned national or international figure, or (2) the crime is a well-documented and historic event, as evidenced by prominent and sustained coverage. Neither is true in this case, in which a former child actor who had played only the most minor of roles made unfulfilled and unsubstantiated threats against a public figure (not notable on its own) and murdered a non-notable person. Outside of these crimes, the subject is not notable, and this news story is unlikely to have any lasting significance or persist beyond the stories already out. — Goszei (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on talk shows, presenting at the Leos, and being nominated for minor regional acting awards that don't get sufficient media coverage for us to even be able to write an adequate article about the awards themselves are not "parts" for the purposes of WP:NACTOR #1, and no other criterion in NACTOR covers any of those things off either. Bearcat (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you realize, don't you, that he is not actually the Wimpy Kid in question, that his name does not appear in the Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2010 film) article, nor his character in List of Diary of a Wimpy Kid characters? StAnselm (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of "was he in a thing you've heard of?" — it's a question of "was he the star of the thing you've heard of, or just a minor walk-on bit part somewhere in the middle?" He wasn't the star of Diary of a Wimpy Kid, so Diary of a Wimpy Kid doesn't magically clinch him as notable all by itself: we're not looking for the prominence of the franchise itself, we're looking for the prominence of his specific role within it. Bearcat (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The murder and plot to kill Trudeau have been widely reported by multiple large news companies. Even though he may not be a major celebrity he is still a person of Note, and the crime he committed is still a major one regardless of whether or not the person who was killed was a significant person in the grand scheme of things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolan361 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and it's not a particularly close call. Grantham had many acting credits and plenty of news coverage of those roles to qualify for an article had the crime for which he's been convicted never occurred. The fact that an article hadn't yet been written about him has no bearing at all on whether this article should be deleted. Kevin Hallward's Ghost (Let's talk) 20:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If he had WP:GNG-worthy sourcing about his career prior to the murder, then how come absolutely no GNG-worthy coverage about him can actually be located outside the context of the murder? Bearcat (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons articulated by Editors above. HistoryEditor3 (talk) 05:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, He is a notable actor who has been in many projects and nominated for awards. He was also referenced in the diary of a wimpy kid movie diary which surprisingly is the bestselling book about filming of all time. Even if the two events if his acting career and his crimes aren't notable, the events put together make a good and notable story to me. I say keep. September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:A703:32CA:4868:75DD:BA35:E6DB (talk)
The number of projects an actor has been in is not a notability criterion; the notability of an actor hinges on the amount of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage in media he does or doesn't have about his performances, not on the raw number of performances he has or hasn't given. And the notability of an actor also isn't clinched just because the article has the word "award" in it, either: even "notable because awards" still requires the awards themselves to be notable ones that pass WP:GNG on their media coverage, and cannot be established by awards that have to be sourced to the awarding organization's own self-published website about themselves or photo galleries because real media coverage about them is nonexistent. At least as Canadian awards go, the only surefire "notable because award" clinches for an actor are the Canadian Screen Awards or the Prix Iris, not the Leos or the Joeys or the post-1986 regional ACTRAs — because it doesn't hinge on the word "award", it hinges on the amount of media coverage that the award ceremony does or doesn't get. Bearcat (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has multiple acting credits and has been the subject of much reporting by news sources lately - however unpleasant the reason for that may be. Certainly meets notability guidelines. The Vital One (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has had notable roles long enough to be considered a reasonably well known actor, and even though he has not had a wiki page before his conviction, it just provides another reason why he should have one.
  • Delete, the above comments seem to be based on a misunderstanding of our notability criterion for actors, Grantham most assuredly does not meet WP:NACTOR, as he has not starred in any notable productions, only appearing in bit parts, and he received no coverage other than passing mentions for these roles. The coverage that exists for his crime is a failure of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- he starred in notable movies and shows like Diary of a Wimpy Kid and Riverdale, and now he has been convicted of a serious crime resulting in life imprisonment. This shows he is notable and the article shouldn't be deleted 747pilot (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, just being in notable movies and shows is not the notability test for an actor — the notability test for an actor hinges on the amount of reliable source coverage about his performances in movies or TV shows can or can't be shown to establish that his performances in movies and shows were significant roles and not just supporting or bit parts. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where does one find coverage about performances? In movie reviews, interviews and other articles about films. And guess what, plenty of published reviews and articles out there on films he's been the lead in, which naturally specifically discuss his performance. Examples:
[1] [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Happy Evil Dude (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does sound like Becoming Redwood needs an article. StAnselm (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, those aren't all reliable or notability-supporting sources; some are, certainly, but some are not.
Secondly, WP:NACTOR requires multiple roles to have received significant coverage, not just one. But of those sources, the ones that are reliable sources are virtually all addressing him exclusively in the context of Becoming Redwood — the only reliable source that has anything to do with Considering Love and Other Magic comes from the local newspaper of the city where that film was shot, and thus wouldn't even establish the notability of the film all by itself let alone the notability of any individual performance within it, so you haven't demonstrated that Considering Love and Other Magic would count as a second notable role under NACTOR. And therefore, having been analyzed and reviewed in the context of Becoming Redwood isn't enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made my way from a well known "Hollywood Gossip" site as I was unfamiliar with his crime. I believe situations like mine are exactly what makes Wikipedia so useful and popular. Should not be deleted. (Christopher Thomas) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.12.197 (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Speaking as someone who uses Wikipedia more than they contribute, I found the page very useful. It was one of the first search results on Google and could be expanded. TheFatJamoc (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 12.138.186.65 (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be no reason to delete this page. This actor turned murderer is culturally relevant and noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:C80:3E10:A571:6463:E32:8EBA (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Why would you delete this record and not delete many others such as Paul Bernardo ,John Wayne Gacey, etc perhaps one rule should apply ? Either delete all convicted killiers or don't delete any, personally myself I lean towards the delete them from history altogether , but that's just my opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.115.76.105 (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bernardo and John Wayne Gacy have enduring significance that clearly passes the ten-year test. No, we do not have to either keep or delete all convicted killers indiscriminately: just as in any other field of human endeavour, there can still be both notable and non-notable killers at the same time. Also, new comments go to the bottom of the page, not the top. Bearcat (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: he may not have been notable enough as an actor to qualify for a Wikipedia article, but he has received a significant amount of media coverage for his crimes (more than enough to warrant an article here, I think). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We do not keep articles about criminals on the basis of recent newsiness; we only keep articles about criminals if they can show a credible reason why people will still be looking for information about them in 2032. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of coverage at the moment, but it's not substantively different. The various roles Mr. Grantham played were not sufficiently major to count for notability, regardless of whether the productions themselves did. There are awards for which simply being a finalist is a claim of notability; none of the awards for which Mr. Grantham was a finalist meet that criterion. There are awards for which being a winner is a claim of notability; again, none of Mr. Grantham's awards meet that criterion. Mr. Grantham's plans to attack Mr. Trudeau might have made the difference, but fortunately Mr. Grantham came to his senses and reported himself to authorities while he was still several thousand miles away from Mr. Trudeau. Delete. DS (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a very strange case. He murdered his mother; he planned to murder the Canadian Prime Minister; he planned to carry out a mass shooting at a university, but had second thoughts and stopped before he did so. The motives are very strange. It's definitely suitable for an encyclopedia article. Also, I disagree with the WP policies on articles about convicted to criminals. I understand that people feel that the notoriety of murderers obscures the lives of their victims, and they think that is unfair. I don't agree with that. But even if we leave aside murderers, there are many convicted criminals whose lives and criminal careers are important to document. Financial criminals are a very important category that should be included and described in full - in part so that we can know what to watch out for to stop the Bernie Madoffs of the future.Jmkleeberg (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the person is notable and the article has potential to expand, which is all that is required for a bio article at Wikipedia. SurgeArrest (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep He's gotten enough coverage in Canadian media [13] and [14]. Mostly for being the Riverdale kid that killed his mom and tried to kill/wanted to kill Trudeau. Some of the coverage is getting into gossipy tabloid stuff (worried his baby face will make him a target in prison). But it's coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep Most of the reasons posited for a keep are tabloid in nature. There is not enough Encyclopedic data to warrant a full article EXCEPT for the individual's acting career. The article should be greatly reduced from it's current state at a minimum. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Interesting—it's not every day that an actor kills his mother. And he was certainly more than an extra in the productions he appeared in. There is enough here to merit keeping the article—and it was an interesting read, too! Dflaw4 (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2022 (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/Ryan_Grantham&oldid=1116654148"