Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Wieber

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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Wieber[edit]

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

There are no secondary sources to establish notability. The only two that appear to be are both dead links and the only remaining citations are those generated by Wieber and his colleague, Michael Scott. Nightscream (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Emmy links have been updated, but google should have been sufficient enough to support the article. -Miki

Search engines like Google are not reliable sources, as they are not publishers of material, but merely indicate frequency of search terms on websites. And if you mean that using Google would've turned out reliable sources, I tried using it before nominating the article, and couldn't find sources that I could discern as reliable, secondary ones. As for the Emmys, while I appreciate the fixing of those links, there are lots of winners of Creative Arts Emmys for special effects who presumably do not merit their own Wikipedia articles. Not everyone is Stan Winston. Nightscream (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable individual, if for nothing else the Emmy Awards. Massive popularity of RvD (as well as press coverage of the same) also indicates notability. I'm in the process of adding more citations, but the claim that there are no secondary sources is false. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that there were no secondary sources referred to sources in the article, so it was not "false". It was true, as there were indeed none in the article when I listed the article for AfD.

There are now a number of reliable secondary sources in the article, and I'm satisfied that the criteria for WP:NOTE have been met.

Also, feature-length films are italicized, but short ones are not, they're quoted. This is true for full-length and short-form works in other media as well (Books and chapters, TV series and episodes, Books of poetry and individual poems, etc.).

Keep per above. Nightscream (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I simply meant to imply that the amount of effort between googling and finding a credible source to update the page with was likely akin to reporting it for deletion. -Miki

Since I did both and you apparently did neither, how would you know that? Nightscream (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2013 (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.