Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Buell

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. Seems like this discussion hinges on whether the proffered sources are indeed sufficient to establish GNG based notability, and opinions appear to vary (especially on the "in-depth" coverage question) without a killer argument being presented in either direction. So no consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Buell

Ryan Buell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Subject does not meet notability requirements and article has had outstanding issues since at least 2010. MisterTimelord (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete fring individuals, like paranormal investigators, require very good sourcing, which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the topic meets WP:GNG. Thinker78 (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: Per GNG, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, therefore it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Thinker78 (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete The page has never had its issues addressed, and Ryan Buell is not notable except for having a short-lived show on A&E in which he pretended to investigate ghosts. 8.41.72.250 (talk)— 8.41.72.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment:Instead of being deleted, given that the topic is notable, has potential, and workable reliable sources, but has quality issues, maybe, per WP:ATD-I it should be moved to draft namespace, to be improved, and eventually moved back to mainspace when it meets quality standards. Thinker78 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete: Just because someone did something on TV once or for busted for a couple crimes does not automatically make them notable. By that logic, everyone who has ever been either arrested or on TV for any purpose is qualified for a Wikipedia entry. 67.247.151.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC) — 67.247.151.236 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Subject meets GNG. He was a main character in a popular TV show that was presented in the whole country, and probably internationally through cable, and he was in it for a few years. That's why many reliable sources address the subject directly and in detail, because he is notable. Thinker78 (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - coverage in People, ABC (above), the Chicago Tribune and Enews, along with general coverage in the context of the show (I know notability is not inherited which is why I'm showing the other coverage) suggests he passes WP:GNG. Another way of looking at it - his legal skirmishes are all getting media coverage only because he's notable. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:FRINGEBLP and WP:CELEBRITY. Those are two excellent guidelines that let us evaluate whether a person (note this is a living, breathing person we're talking about having an article focused solely on) should be subject to biographical scrutiny. In this case, neither of these criteria are fulfilled. Arguments that the person fulfills WP:GNG hinge mostly on the television show in which he was featured meeting the requirements for inclusion. A redirect to the television show may be appropriate, but keeping a separate biography with the notability lacking as it is in this case is something that we should not be doing and I would hate for precedent to be kept in keeping a biography solely on the basis of entanglements with the law and incidents indicating a failure to launch. jps (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It is unclear what criteria you are referring to regarding WP:FRINGEBLP. Could you please quote the relevant text in said guideline? What I found in WP:FRINGEBLP actually supports keeping the article. Namely the guideline states, "Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner". As shown previously, there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner. For me "enough" would be at least three different reliable and independent sources. Consequently, the topic meets WP:FRINGEBLP criteria. Regarding WP:CELEBRITY, its second criteria says, "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following"; according to ABC, "Buell has a pretty big fan base across the country". And, as mentioned previously, the topic meets GNG, therefore it is notable. Per WP:BASIC, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", and such sources has already been shown in a previous comment. If you don't like what the sources talk about the subject, please quote a specific policy or guideline that backs up what you say. Thinker78 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves." We don't have such sources. We have sensationalized news stories of the "dog bites man" sort. There is no source that has been identified which offers a serious, extensive biographical look at this subject. Rather we have sources which salaciously tell the story of a cancer diagnosis that may have been fake, a promotional tour that never was, and arrest and convictions that may be related to a drug addiction. That's not good enough. jps (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you. The sources I posted discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner. And they also have significant coverage about the subject, therefore meeting GNG also. Notice how GNG establishes the criteria only as "significant coverage", which is defined as "directly and in detail". All that coverage by different, independent, reliable sources makes the topic notable. Thinker78 (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

None of the sources that are listed here investigate the subject in an extensive manner. It's sensationalism, pure and simple. jps (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, but needs a bit of work. He seems notable (vaguely) but not really for the right reasons.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per TimTempleton.- MrX 🖋 17:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete and merge any independent and non-WP:SENSATIONal coverage to Paranormal State, the TV show Buell derives his extremely limited celebrity from. Then clean up the truly awful Paranormal State article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree. As proven with example sources above, topic meets GNG, which states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article"". And WP:SENSATION is a guideline for events not people. Besides, the article is not about a scandal or some gossip, but about a notable former TV show presenter. Thinker78 (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I added a clarifying sentence since it seems that noob Wikipedians can't help but be pedantic. SMH. jps (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Plenty of sources about the person (not his show: the person) along time build a solid WP:GNG case. "Sensationalism" is far from being an objective criteria, and it seems akin to a proxy for WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. - cyclopia^speak! 13:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Now, now. You're supposed to assume good faith. The problem with using sensationalized news stories as a basis for notability is that you can do very real harm to living people. I could equally argue that I take the editorial responsibility of content curation at a top ten website more seriously than you and maybe you're just out for this poor man's blood. jps (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Now, now. I haven't the slightest idea of what do you mean about being 'out of this poor man's blood' -why should I want this? Why should I have anything against the subject of this article? Now, I could say that, if anything, I am taking seriously our responsibility, by ensuring that we cover sourced information regardless of how much we like it or not, or any handwaving about 'harm' (which there isn't, as long as we stick to the sources and strive for NPOV). You can insinuate and poison the well as much as you want. Fact is, this guy is well sourced, and as such there is no reason to delete the article.- cyclopia^speak! 20:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
      • "Well sourced" in this case is to tabloid journalism-style pieces. jps (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

References

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.