Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan O'Donohue (3rd nomination)

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 Keep. Although far from unanimous, it appears that notability has been at least marginally postulated. JGHowes ^talk 02:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan O'Donohue[edit]

[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)

Let's have a proper discussion this time, since my previous noms were cut short by procedural reasons.

I am still not convinced that this subject is notable at all. He is known as Demyx from the Kingdom Hearts series, but that's about it. Nothing else regarding his career stands out. In the previous AFD, some participants noted that the subject meets WP:NACTOR, but let remind you that WP:NACTOR is the *additional* criteria for WP:BASIC, which I am not convinced that this subject meets, besides not meeting WP:NACTOR for just that one notable role.

Quoting 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. Where is the coverage for this subject? I can't even find any relevant interviews for him.

This subject also does not meet WP:WHYN. Quoting the guideline: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. From the same guideline: Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. What can we even write about the subject in question? If you ask me, not even a full paragraph due to lack of coverage. Sk8erPrince (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sk8erPrince (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete I think we should not apply actor notability indiscriminately to voice actors. He really only has one notable role, and that is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACTOR. The subject has had a significant role in three animated works and had a main on-screen role in the sitcom The Byrds of Paradise for one season as a child actor. I agree with the consensus from the the second AFD nomination which went through the normal process. Only the first nomination was a procedural close. I added the content for his onscreen maincast work which was missing and added a ref reviewing his performance in Wallstreet Journal. 4meter4 (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4, as mentioned above, WP:NACTOR is the *additional* criteria for WP:BASIC. Also - Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. WP:NACTOR cannot be the sole reason to keep an article, especially when the subject fails several other criteria. I'm still not convinced that the subject meets WP:NACTOR, either way.

I saw the source you cited but there's no link/screencap for it. Hence, it is unverifiable. Where can I read it? Also - what are the subject's notable roles in animated works?

BTW - the subject also fails WP:SIGCOV; quoting the guideline: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The subject was only briefly mentioned in the Press Enterprise article, so he fails that criteria. Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sk8erPrince, policy toward offline references is that they do support verifiabilty. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Offline sources policy. You can read it wherever there is a library with access to that newspaper (being the Wallstreet Journal that should be any public library in the USA) in their collection/archives. Not every source has a url, and wikipedia is just fine with that. Please see User:FloridaArmy's comments at the 2nd nomination linked above for animation work.4meter4 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that source were valid, that's just one reliable source, which means the subject fails WP:SIGCOV. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I’m in the appearance does not equal notability camp. Anyone with a SAG card can appear in a movie or do voice roles. Where are the reliable sources that validate achievements? Sorry to this man. Trillfendi (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4 comments. —AdamF in MO (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACTOR. The subject has had a significant role in three animated works and had a main on-screen role in the sitcom The Byrds of Paradise. It can be disruptive to repeatedly to nominate an article. Wm335td (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR cannot be the sole reason to keep an article, per above. It doesn't matter how many notable roles an actor has (or in this case, the lack thereof), if the subject fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BASIC and WP:WHYN. Furthermore, I renommed the AFD because my previous two noms were cut short for procedural reasons; hence, I am not convinced that we've truly had a proper discussion for the subject. I can assure you that the intent is to have a proper AFD discussion, and nothing more. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Lack of sources is an issue but an extensive filmography that includes several oscar nominated and one oscar winning film pushes him through in my opinion. Passes WP:NACTOR and WP:COMMONSENSE. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the only production that the subject has voiced in that won an Oscar is Toy Story 1; specifically, the Special Achievement Oscar. The recipient of that Oscar is John Lasseter (the director), and *not* the subject, since the subject only voiced as an extra in the film. What are the other productions that were "Oscar nominated"? Clarification is needed here.

Secondly, there is a huge difference between films being nominated for an Oscar and winning them, versus the subject *actually* winning the award in question. As far as I am concerned, the subject not only does *not* have an extentive filmography like you claim, but has also won a total number of zero awards, especially *not* an Oscar (let alone multiple of them). While having no awards does not necessarily mean an actor lacks notability, I am sure you could see that your Oscar argument is beginning to fall apart here.

One of the issues that I have is that there is practically nothing more you could write about the subject, failing WP:WHYN. It is important to be able to write a full article, as opposed to just a few sentences like in this current instance.

And once again, WP:NACTOR cannot be the sole reason to keep an article. It is an additional criterion listed under WP:BASIC. In other words, if WP:BASIC is not met, then WP:NACTOR is pretty much moot. You know I am not making this up; you can check the page and see for yourself. Or, for your own convenience, here you go.

Also, really? WP:IAR? In what way does that policy even apply here? I am very confused. Can you elaborate what you actually mean instead of just linking the "common sense" section (which happens to be an explanatory supplement of IAR)? That'll help me understand your perspective more. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR. The nominator is mistaken about the actor meeting more than WP:NACTOR. I have outlined the subject specific WP:POLICY below. In addition I am starting some cleanup today.

Per WP:N: A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline below, OR the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Lightburst (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but WP:N also clearly states that this is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. I am mistaken about nothing. And I hate to break it to you, but WP:BASIC is the subject specific guideline in Wikipedia:Notability (people). WP:NACTOR, which the majority of the Keep camp seems to like to use as the sole criterion to preserve this article is, again, listed *under* WP:BASIC, in the Additional Criteria. Which means, if WP:BASIC is not met, WP:NACTOR is more or less rendered moot. I keep asking for significant coverage, but I don't think any one of you has linked any interviews/articles that features more than just a trivial mention for this subject.

Also, per WP:NRV: The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. I am still seeing no evidence of WP:SIGCOV as far as this subject is concerned. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You have made quite a few points and used WP essays/policies to back up your points. You should let the ivoters decide based on their understanding of policy. We also have a duty to WP:PRESERVE and explore WP:ATD. I understand your points and I disagree. It is not necessary to attack every ivoters opinion. Actors are known for their work, not their ability to generate press i.e. get arrested, go to rehab etc. This is why we have subject specific guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attacking anyone. I am simply debating and refuting the misconception that WP:NACTOR alone is enough justification to keep the article. If an actor has three lead roles in three productions, yet there is no coverage and nothing more to write about, then they fail WP:WHYN. Nobody is saying that we should document how many times an actor has gone on rehab and been arrested. Think about it - a notable actor should have been interviewed a good number of times by now so that we at least have *something* to write, such as their birthplace, education and background. I'm seeing none of that here, so I remain unconvinced that the subject is notable. Plain and simple.

PS: For your information, every single point I've linked in this debate is Wikipedia policy. Not a single one is an essay.

PS2: I am also not convinced that alternative methods to deletion can be considered in this case, when there is nothing more to write about for this subject. How does one even go about expanding and improving an article when there is barely any coverage to speak of? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. See prior discussions for reasons why this was ill=advised.

Serial Deletion discussions are a huge waste of valuable editor time. 1st 2nd 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I *did* try to look for sources before I nommed the article for deletion. I came up with nothing noteworthy. So yes, I already did my part for WP:BEFORE. You say that the subject meets WP:GNG, but where's your evidence for that? WP:GNG = WP:SIGCOV, by the way. Where is the significant coverage? I've already debated against WP:NACTOR plenty of times above, so I will not repeat my argument for that one again.

Also, for the last time, the previous two discussions were cut short due to procedural reasons. How is this third AFD, which is, for all intents and purposes, fully fleshed out and more like a proper discussion, a waste of time? If you don't want to participate in this discussion, then just say so. I'm still not convinced that we could further expand the article due to a severe lack of reliable sources and significant coverage; for these reasons, the subject fails WP:WHYN. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no convincing the true believer. We will have to agree to disagree. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NACTOR is clearly met. WP:NOTABILITY clearly states it only has to meet either the GNG or one of the subject specific guidelines, not both. Dream Focus 01:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. WP:BASIC is the subject specific guideline for Wikipedia:Notability (people), not WP:NACTOR, since that is listed *under* the Additional Criteria. Failing WP:BASIC means that we don't have to consider the additional criteria. No WP:SIGCOV means that there is an unlikely chance of securing the article. Where's the significant coverage for the subject? Trivial mentions aren't "significant coverage". I don't get why people are so intent on keeping an article that they know that they can't effectively expand, as if WP:WHYN is completely irrelevant and does not even matter. Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It can meet either criteria. The subject specific guidelines wouldn't exist if you had to meet the general notability guidelines. Not sure why people sometimes get confused by that. Dream Focus 02:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero confusion here. How many guidelines have I linked that clearly print that significant coverage is required for articles, especially for biographies? And how many times have I stated that additional criteria such as WP:NACTOR are meant to be supplements to WP:BASIC? You may want to read Wikipedia:Notability (people) one more time (preferably thoroughly this time).

Having 3 lead roles does not matter if there is a lack of significant coverage to write anything substantial. If we all do is document an actor's roles with barely any content, such as biographical information, then how is it any different than a resume? At that point, it's just a resume pretending to be an article; Wikipedia is not a host for an actor's resume. Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV - if he had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, then I would expect to see significant coverage in reliable sources about those roles, there isn't. Looking at all the references used in the article, trying to beef up his bio with trivial mentions/listed as a cast member in the NYT, LA Times, EW, etc. doesn't cut it, nor does using references that merely list his acting credits, that's not significant coverage. The WP articles listed in his filmography look impressive too, but there is no significant coverage about his roles in those articles either. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any coverage about him specifically other than that one piece in the Press Enterprise. All I can find is him being mentioned in association with Byrds and Kingdom Hearts in every other source and even then there is nothing directly about him out there (edit: In reliable sources, there is a ton in IMDB like places). Even in trade publications. spryde | talk 12:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:10YT through all citations being periodicals from the mid 1990s. If he was notable enough to be encyclopedic I'd expect to see coverage that wasn't from 1994. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That link has a disclaimer at the top that reads: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." An actual guideline is WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary. Dream Focus 17:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's any relevance to maintaining a page on a voice actor from 1994. WP:NOTDIR Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - He started his career then, but has been activate up to this year even. Dream Focus 18:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 20 21 references document a lot of his work. That they are now there speaks for itself. Res ipsa loquitor. That they were overlooked before this nomination is telling. Q.E.D., WP:Before was overlooked, even if it was due to inadvertence. ::::The articles sourcing is not what it was when the WP:PROD was proposdd. Arguably, WP:HEY 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good! Lightburst (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a lot of listings and trivial mentions. A working actor, but does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I concur with 4meter4. This individual fits the actor notability criteria due to his appearances in multiple major movies and television series. He's had some major roles too, in Recess, Batman Beyond, etc… And the sourcing in the article has been beefed up a lot, so it hits that note as well.Patiodweller (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep per AlessandroTiandelli333. Naomi.piquette (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2019 (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.