Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Channing

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. Hut 8.5 21:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Channing[edit]

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

Only substantial claim to notability is his relationship with Ian Thorpe, but that isn't really enough to pass WP:GNG. Boneymau (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable as a model yet, or notable outside being Thorpe's boyfriend. Also, sources say he turned 27 in September, so the birth info is wrong anyway. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 02:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note attempted removal of deletion tag from article. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 05:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Ian Thorpe in lieu of deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Ian Thorpe as it's a plausible search term. Delete (after further thought) Not notable in his own right - searches turn up a number of hits but they're all references to his relationship with Thorpe, or else they're social media or run-of-the-mill directory entries and so on related to his work as a model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neiltonks (talk • contribs) 09:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Ian Thorpe. Not notable in own right but is a likely search term. Current material is sufficient encyclopedic so salvage. Aoziwe (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete oppose redirect of a BLP to another BLP. They are not married and have been dating for less than a year. In addition to the standard concerns I have over a BLP redirecting to a BLP: the subject of the redirect having no control over the actions that lead to the content of the article, the young relationship weighs strong. If they break up, having a redirect of a biography of a living person redirecting to his ex-boyfriend would be a major issue, and I wouldn't hold my breath on someone remembering to take this to RfD if the time comes. If they were married or in a long-term relationship, I'd be more open to redirecting, but at this time I can't get behind it, and he is already mentioned in the Thorpe briefly so there is nothing to merge. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point TonyBallioni. I'd not considered the privacy angle. He's just an ordinary guy who happens to be dating a celebrity so on reflection I agree with you - Delete. Neiltonks (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Neiltonks: you might want to strike your redirect !vote above to make it clear you support deleting. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per TonyBallioni. There's no case for notability apart from gossip columns on his personal relationships, which should not justify even a redirect here. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2017 (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.