Significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. When originally flagged for deletion over a year ago, the article had some minor claims to notoriety, mainly a Hollywood Reporter article, an article in Variety, and a Presspass LA Article. However, although the consensus at the time was to delete, a significant amount of new information was published regarding the subject of the article. Recently, there were two articles in the Huffington Post as well as another source from Variety, and a mention in The Hollywood Reporter in addition to the previous mentions. There is also an article in Forbes which prominently mentions Ryan Long and numerous articles dedicated to his work (although not explicitly mentioning him). There are many other news articles related to Long that can be found online as well as a mention at the United Nation’s NOVUS summit last summer. These updated sources overwhelmingly push the article over the GNG threshold. DrSangChi (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment of the six sources listed, sources 1 and 2 are contributor posts, not Huffington Post articles, and thus the equivalent of blog posts. Sources 3 and 4 are the identical press release, which is about an event and only has a quote from Long, saying nothing about him personally. I can't get to Forbes, as they block adblockers. Oh, and I don't see where he's mentioned in text in the UN link--a pointer to where in which presentation he's mentioned would be helpful to evaluate that. Jclemens (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes article is a single mention with no details. Hobit (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It reviews the event and credits Long as the producer. The direct quote is, "City Gala 2016 and its producer Ryan Long didn't disappoint in terms of glitz and glam." DrSangChi (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'd say that's a single mention with no details, but YMMV. Hobit (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like what has happened is that the subject has been mentioned several more times in reliable published sources... But it also appears that he has yet to be the subject of meaningful discussion in such sources, making the use of terms like "overwhelming" somewhat less than convincing in this instance (WP:CLEARLY). KDS4444 (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the sources provided above do not address the issues raised by those who !voted delete in the AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse if it's not clear from my comments above. Hobit (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse while there is new material, it's just mentions, nothing in-depth that we could use to build a biography article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just regarding the two Huffpo articles above. Those articles include biographical information and are not self published sources as they are written by official Huffington Post contributors and published by Huffington Post. According to WP:BLPSPS, "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." DrSangChi (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note the disclaimer that appears on each one, "This post is hosted on the Huffington Post's Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site." These can't be used as sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
