Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Riley Snyder (2nd 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. Snow keep. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. reliable third party sources have been found to establish the subject's notability. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Dylan Riley Snyder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Young actor on his way up, but not yet, I believe, notable with regard to WP standards. Initially I tagged the article to provide additional BLP sources because I felt the only half decent sources listed only mentioned this kid in passing as a cast member in the play being reported on. The only sources that actually have any 'meat' tend to be his hometown publications being proud of their boy. The creator of the article removed the tags stating "The article is sourced / If the sources aren't good enough for you then nominate the article at WP:AFD". So here we are, I don't like to disappoint. The Pink Oboe (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I removed the tags because every single part of the article is sourced. There are plenty of other sources confirming what the hometown paper reported, but it seems silly to "stack" sources just to keep verifying what is already proven; that he was one of the leads on Broadway for almost a year, was one of the co-leads in an "ensemble" cast of a critically acclaimed film (Variety made a point to single him out as the most compelling perfomer in a "superb" cast, as can be verified here), was honored with a Special Drama Desk Award for yet another New York stage production (as can be verified in the "awards" link on his IBDB page here), is one of the lead stars on Disney XD's #1 rated show of all time, etc, etc. I realize hometown papers aren't as highly regarded as The New York Times, but they do tend to provide more detailed information about a young stars background/bio, which is why I used the "hometown" paper instead of the larger New York papers. One other note - While sourcing the article I found numerous sources that credit him as simply "Dylan Snyder" (which is also the name of another child actor close to his age), so a simple google news search of his full "professional" name, "Dylan Riley Snyder", doesn't give a full picture of the coverage he's received - and searching the name "Dylan Snyder" is difficult to sift through which articles mention him versus the other child actor of the same name. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One follow-up note. I just noticed the article has been assessed as "C-class" by two separate editors for two different Wikiprojects. Presumably, if those editors had found some glaring notability/sourcing problems they would have mentioned something about it before rating the article a "C". --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although some of the proferred sources are not RS, a number of them are, and I think those are enough to support keeping this article. Crakkerjakk correctly notes that he is playing significant roles in these productions and is mentioned repeatedly in the reviews, for example, the Variety review of Life During Wartime singles him out as the top performer in that film. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He may not be Lionel Barrymore, but this article is better written than average, and better sourced than average. 78.26 (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's sourced. He appears in sourced productions. Why the aggro? Greglocock (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just a note - I readily admit a couple of the sources I used were primary sources from his website or his professional IMDb "Resume", but I was careful to use those as references for his background/early life and not to establish notability. Listing a few early commercial/modeling credits hardly appeared to me as his representatives "overblowing" his early experience, so I included it as the type of harmless "background" information his 13y/o fanbase would most likely find interesting. As far as his little "hometown" newspaper, The Tuscaloosa News - It may not be well known to those outside of Alabama, but it's part of The New York Times Regional Media Group and most certainly does qualify as a "reliable source". All of that notwithstanding, the one credit I believed established obvious "notability", regardless of anything else he'd ever done, is the Disney XD series he currently co-stars on. In the bio, I referenced a second Variety article that clearly states the sitcom is the #1 series in the network's history, and he's on it. I should think that, in and of itself, meets WP:Common sense "fan base" notability - rather than me having to cite a hundred silly "teen magazines" interviewing him about "what he looks for in a girl" or his "favorite flavor of ice cream". --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Happy to reverse my opinion from the 1st AFD, as his career has moved forward and the improved article differs significantly from the version that was deleted last July.[1] While the article is full of a lot of miscellania and could benefit from cleanup per WP:MOS, I find the career to finally meet WP:ENT and the awards to tweak nicely at WP:ANYBIO. The nominator and author's differences aside, addressable issues do not require deletion... they require discussion and addressing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Lol. I'd say "full of miscellania" is a big exaggeration, however, I agree - I cringe a little whenever I feel compelled to include info about a young star's "commercial" credits, "hobbies", etc, but I've written quite a few Disney Channel/Nickelodeon bios, so I try and keep in mind the average age of the readership of the article. While his early commercials and childhood hobbies most likely won't be an important part of his bio 20 years from now - 12 year olds eat that type of cr@p up - they can youtube his early commercials, be inspired put down the gameboy and take up one of the star's new "hobbies" themselves, etc.. As 78.26 pointed out, he's no Lionel Barrymore (what 14y/o is), yet Barrymore's bio is filled with "miscellania" (most of it unsourced), the only difference being - does anyone want to know whose feet Barrymore kissed as a kid? If we're going to suddenly start a cleanup crusade then there are about a million Wikipedia bio articles in much more desperate need of it than Snyder's, imo. At worst, Snyder's Benadryl and Chuck E. Cheese's credits are interesting to the average reader coming to his page and completely harmless to anyone else, whereas the childhood "foot kissing" factoid on Barrymore's page is just completely random and actually made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but we're not writing only for 12-year-olds, and those million Wikipedia bio articles in much more desperate need" are not the topic of this discussion. What I feel can be addressed through regular discussion and editing, and not a reason to delete, is the inclusion of minutae that have a sense of trivia. In Barrymore's case, his notability is such that folks actually wish to know such munutae. In Snyder's case, not so much. Good job though. :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but we're not writing only for foot fetishists either. While you may personally find Barrymore's childhood kinks "encyclopedic", I most certainly don't, so I maintain that sourced background info about an actor's actual career is far more encyclopedic than unsourced claims about whether Barrymore may have been "friends" with Jean Harlow or not. If you really feel the Snyder article is in such bad shape then we can have a long/protracted discussion/debate about it on his talk page, but we both know the Snyder article is better-sourced (and therefore better written) than the vast majority of bio articles on Wikipedia (Barrymore being just one "random" example I used since another editor threw his name out there), so it seems like a silly use of our time that we could be spending improving articles that actually need it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I care little about Barrymore's diversions, but it does seem we do have "something" for those interested in such sport. In returning to the topic at hand, you're correct.. what can be discussed and addressed through regular editing, does not require a deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and it seems we also have "something" for those interested in television commercials as well. Bottom line - I'm not the type to just roll over - so whenever there are editors with nothing better to do than tag/remove encyclopic information that is properly sourced based on their own imaginary double-standards about the subject's "notablility" then they're going to have a long/protracted "discussion" on their hands. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I care little about Barrymore's diversions, but it does seem we do have "something" for those interested in such sport. In returning to the topic at hand, you're correct.. what can be discussed and addressed through regular editing, does not require a deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but we're not writing only for foot fetishists either. While you may personally find Barrymore's childhood kinks "encyclopedic", I most certainly don't, so I maintain that sourced background info about an actor's actual career is far more encyclopedic than unsourced claims about whether Barrymore may have been "friends" with Jean Harlow or not. If you really feel the Snyder article is in such bad shape then we can have a long/protracted discussion/debate about it on his talk page, but we both know the Snyder article is better-sourced (and therefore better written) than the vast majority of bio articles on Wikipedia (Barrymore being just one "random" example I used since another editor threw his name out there), so it seems like a silly use of our time that we could be spending improving articles that actually need it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but we're not writing only for 12-year-olds, and those million Wikipedia bio articles in much more desperate need" are not the topic of this discussion. What I feel can be addressed through regular discussion and editing, and not a reason to delete, is the inclusion of minutae that have a sense of trivia. In Barrymore's case, his notability is such that folks actually wish to know such munutae. In Snyder's case, not so much. Good job though. :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Lol. I'd say "full of miscellania" is a big exaggeration, however, I agree - I cringe a little whenever I feel compelled to include info about a young star's "commercial" credits, "hobbies", etc, but I've written quite a few Disney Channel/Nickelodeon bios, so I try and keep in mind the average age of the readership of the article. While his early commercials and childhood hobbies most likely won't be an important part of his bio 20 years from now - 12 year olds eat that type of cr@p up - they can youtube his early commercials, be inspired put down the gameboy and take up one of the star's new "hobbies" themselves, etc.. As 78.26 pointed out, he's no Lionel Barrymore (what 14y/o is), yet Barrymore's bio is filled with "miscellania" (most of it unsourced), the only difference being - does anyone want to know whose feet Barrymore kissed as a kid? If we're going to suddenly start a cleanup crusade then there are about a million Wikipedia bio articles in much more desperate need of it than Snyder's, imo. At worst, Snyder's Benadryl and Chuck E. Cheese's credits are interesting to the average reader coming to his page and completely harmless to anyone else, whereas the childhood "foot kissing" factoid on Barrymore's page is just completely random and actually made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2011 (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.