Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan J. Downey (2nd nomination)

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. SpinningSpark 14:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan J. Downey

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

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are profiles, passing mentions and social media links, and a Spam link. Nothing of depth or quality. scope_creep^Talk 16:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with these criticisms. I've pared it down to actually notable information and am fixing up the sources as per what you've noted. VictorCreedxXx (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far nothing has been to effectively improve the references. Ref 1,5,10, 13 are non-rs. They are unreliable sources. Looking at the other references:

Ref 2 Profile It is passing mention
Ref 3 Listing This is primary. It is podcast episode listing. Its not a real source.
Ref 4 Archive of work] Listing of work at MTV News
Ref 6 Hearst Digital Studios continues to expand its suite of online programming Hosted by Ryan J. Downey.
Ref 7 Andy Biersack’s memoir "Written alongside Ryan J. Downey", possibly an author? Just a passing mention.
Ref 8 Shop ref A spam link
Ref 9 Pod link Link to the podcast.

There is no real WP:SECONDARY sources here. There is a hint being an author but no reviews of the work to prove it. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The coverage of this individual has been moderate to say the least, but the presence he has made is quite large. I think the podcast links should be considered in the future as a form of historical archive, as many a time have they corrected mistakes that authors on this very platform have created. Also, there are numerous articles on this platform with fewer references and works to back up notoriety. Nevertheless, there is enough here to maintain the article's importance. Despite the user who continually removes the history of this individual, regardless of what they feel is important, there is plenty of sources remaining to maintain this page. --Metalworker14 (Yo) 21:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The article references have been redone such that 1,5,10,13 are non-rs but they show passing mentions, for example Hearst Digital. It is the same references before. For example hollywood reporter, a passing mention. The form here is to produce three secondary sources per WP:THREE that show the person is notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NCREATIVE and WP:GNG. The sources are simply not there: The typical IMDb non-reference; a few interviews, in fact podcasts, though not enough of them, e.g. here, here, or here with multiple others interviewed; a simple announcement about his book's publication; the Discogs listing of Burn It Down, but not of our subject; personal blog articles such as this; and so on. At the end of the day, has our subject been an "important figure" in his field? Is he "widely cited by peers or successors"? Is he "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique"? Has he "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? Firmly no to all, per sources, and, more accurately, lack thereof. No matter what are our personal, art preferences might be, this encyclopaedia is not a directory of artists. Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 12:04, 13 July 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.