Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Wiik

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 and the discussion about whether to merge it can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 01:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Wiik

[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)

If not for WR Entertainment, this nomination would be a slam dunk: He was voted out of the first round of a talent show, and he played a minor role in a film.

What's generated all the press coverage has been the company. He co-founded it. They acquired rights to make films of a book series. He was announced to play the lead in the films but failed his audition. Everybody in the company sued everybody else. Lurid details came out in the process.

I am not convinced, even if WP:GNG is met, that he has met the notability criteria to have a biography on Wikipedia. I am also not convinced that he is a public figure, so a lot of the details about the litigation should be removed from the article—and again, we're left to wonder where the notability is.

Full disclosure: I made this nomination after Gryanwiik attempted to reprod the article. I declined the prod, but I made an independent review of the article. This nomination is based on my years of experience on Wikipedia and my understanding of our policies, especially related to notability, biographies of living people, and presumption in favor of privacy; it is not a knee-jerk reaction to his request for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Norway. —C.Fred (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the various allegations towards him are well covered in the VG documentary article to which Mr. Wiik gave limited answers to defend his stature (which is his right of course). Overall, I think Mr. Wiik is a man of such limited notability that his article can be deleted. Future references to him in WR Entertainment articles will not be excluded, as can outcome of future legislation / settlement details. T929212 (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by T929212 (talk • contribs)

Keep - after reviewing the Variety article and the wikipedia articles on those Norwegian news sources to gauge their reliablity, I believe he passes the GNG. The Variety article focuses on him and suggests that he is the founder of WR Entertainment. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it meets GNG. So I'm not clear as to why nom think that even if it meets GNG here, it is not notable. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E5D0:F89A:4BF9:D281 (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be better suited as a stand-alone article on WR entertainment and that saga? Allegedly it's bankrupt now. T929212 (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To the IP: The phrases "is presumed to be" and "is" are not equivalent. Or, if GNG is a rule, this is an exception. Further, if the coverage about the subject delves into areas that other policies say we shouldn't cover in the article but we let that coverage count for GNG metrics, then we'd in a catch-22 of saying the subject is notable, but we can't/won't tell the reader why. @T929212: I wondered that as well, but I"m not sure that the company is specifically notable either.

This is an edge case. If I were obsessed about AfD metrics and only nominating articles that I felt would probably be deleted, I wouldn't have nominated. IMO, this nomination isn't probable but is more-likely-than-not (or at least a toss-up). I looked at the article, then sat back for a while and thought, and decided that the best and most transparent thing to do would be to nominate this article for AfD and let the community discuss it. (Expanded commentary on talk page.) —C.Fred (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred: Maybe we can add it to film adaptation paragraph for Morgan Kane rather? That is notable in my view. T929212 (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@T929212: Now that's a possibility I hadn't thought about: distill this article down to one paragraph, two at the most, about the company, particularly as it relates to the potential Morgan Kane movies. If the community decides this content should be merged into that article, then I am on board with preserving the history of this article for attribution purposes and turning Ryan Wiik into a redirect to Morgan Kane. —C.Fred (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on board with that. The drama surrounding WR entertainment and Mr Wiik can also be included there then. I'm not sure who holds the movie rights currently. T929212 (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet, but further scope for discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:45, 12 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.