Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Barr

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. Michig (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Barr[edit]

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

IP removed PROD tag without addressing any of the issues. Article has zero third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Aoidh (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 16:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interview) @ 16:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ Article needs better sourcing, but given the number of roles already listed here, this isn't a small set for someone who is still a teenager. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a set that meets WP:NACTOR either. Merely being in a large number of minor roles at a young age is irrelevant to the notability of the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does your SCARE CAPS actually say? "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I'd see Shameless, This is England 88 and Hollyoaks as significant productions, and his role within each as adequate individually to make them valid per NACTOR. Of course he's not Meryl Streep, but he's not doing bad for a career so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Significant role is the part you missed, not merely being in a series of productions. This individual does not have that, especially when it cannot even be verified given the comment below. "Not doing bad" is not a criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia and what he's done at his age is only a consideration of sources note this as significant in some way, and that hasn't happened. His age is irrelevant, and the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR in even the most basic sense. Also given that this is a BIO article sourcing is critical; lack of sourcing means there shouldn't be an article at all, given that there isn't a single reliable source even so much as verifying what's in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax?

There is a mystery over Ryan Barr´s entries in IMDB - he seems to be in the casts of This is England '88, Top Dog, Hollyoaks and Shameless, but the name of the role he is playing in each of these is blank. In addition it has proved impossible to find out anywhere the names of the roles he plays in these (and other) dramas. There is a concern that there is some hoaxing going on here. Can anyone shed any light on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandekafsh (talk • contribs) 12:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not shown as an actor in any of our lists of Hollyoaks characters. He does, though, appear on the end of a long list of fictional characters in the main Hollyoaks article: Noyster (talk), 12:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St Helens seem to think that he turned their christmas lights on. OTOH, an aspiring actor ought to be employing better PR to increase his visible presence. I've no objection to delete on the basis that verification is being more awkward than it ought to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete owing to a lack of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to meet WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2015 (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.