Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rusty Ryan (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 03:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Ryan

edit
AfDs for this article:
Rusty Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As previous with the deletion of Linus Caldwell, this page should be moved to List of Ocean's Trilogy characters. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:00 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Granted he's a major character in the Ocean's films, but I think "iconic" is somewhat of an overstatement of the matter. Personally I don't think his character particularly merits expansion in the individual film articles either - the sourcing for the existing article is two quotes from Jerry Weintraub that don't strike me as being particularly insightful. As with the Linus Caldwell article, I don't see anything establishing the character as being particularly notable on his own terms, nor does the article seem to provide any significant real-world context aside from the two quotes...which are both from the same person. Not really looking for an argument though. Doniago (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I invite editors to visit the article that existed up until you yourself tagged it for improvement on December 14, 2010[1] only one minute before you then removed its souracble contents.[2] Editors should judge it by what it was and its potential before you made it a stub one week ago. After a keep, I would expect that will be reverted to its earlier version and then sourced. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its earlier version that was largely a biography of a fictitious character and included no additional sourcing? If people want to source that material they're welcome to add it back in. I'd be happy to reconsider my position at that time. I would hope that any editor who was going to revert it would add sources and cull the OR, but in that event I suspect there wouldn't actually be much notable content to re-include.
If you feel the material was unjustifiably removed you can of course add it back in now, but I don't think it's appropriate to add the material in its current state. At this point I'd like to hear from other editors as well. Doniago (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I invited editors to look at what it was before it was "trimmed". And note, descriptives of screen actions that can be seen by any viewer of the film, is not OR, and can be sourced to the film itself. WP:OR would be in unsourced interpretation or editorializing of such actions. I'll be glad to source and return, as its removal has now made this Somebody else's problem... and the ones who improve articles sent to AFD are usually those who opine a keep. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Extracting singular quotes about Brad Pitt is not enough to WP:verify notability because you need sources that address the subject in direct detail. Consensus can change and the previous nominations say more about a lack of consensus than they do about a firm community belief that this article is appropriate. The second nomination saw four keep !votes with no improvement to the article after it was tagged by ARS. The first nomination reached no consensus on the expectation that this article could be improved. You can see editors from the first nomination who switched from !keep to !delete as they realized that it couldn't. People have tried to improve the article in good faith but it's just incapable of meeting our guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that someone else did not add more sources to an already sourced article within some arbitrary deadline is not a helpful rationale for deletion when sources are readily available.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] And as this is not a BLP, for anyone to remove otherwise verifiable content he does not wish personally to source, to thus make an improvable article appear as unimprovable as he asserts, is not quite the way to fix things, is it? And to repeat, and specially with all the available sources to confirm the article's past content, a reader's also being able to verify the character descriptives and screen actions through watching the films themselves is not OR... as WP:OR would be in unsourced interpretation or editorializing of such actions. The existing sources and coverage of this character in context to the film series already and quite strongly WP:verify notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that you feel the article should be kept, and are willing to do the research to locate what you believe to be reliable sources, and your knowledge that the article is currently being discussed as a possible AFD, I'm uncertain why you are not taking actions to improve the article currently. That being said, I also don't see where or how it's been established that the subject of the article is notable on its own terms. Perhaps if you make the effort to improve the article that will be more apparent to me. Doniago (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • @ Doniago: Given the multiple available sources allowing a reasonable presumption of notability, you are quite welcome to yourself return the material you removed and then source it. Thank you though, for graciously suggesting that I be the one to do so. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • When the only person arguing that the article should be kept is unwilling to make edits that might improve it, you'll have to forgive me if I decline, as someone who doesn't believe the subject is notable enough to merit an article in the first place, to make edits myself. Put another way, if you'd like me to make the edits, persuade me that edits can be made that will transform the article into one that should be preserved. Given that anyone actively tracking this discussion is now aware of my deletions and your issues with them, it could be considered "notable" that nobody, including you, has chosen to undo them. Silence implies consent, and it's notable, to me, that you still haven't provided a reason as to why you won't make any changes yourself. If you won't make an effort to rescue the article besides your arguments here, why should anyone else? Doniago (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • @ Doniago: So far, and apparently based upon seeing a 109 word article that you personally reduced from its original 1713 words, we have 1 nominator, 2 "deletes", and one 2 "keeps"... not exactly a wide and sweeping consensus upon which to delete an article that was kept twice before... but I blame the holidays for the temporary lack of traffic here. And thank you for again inferring that since I opined a keep, it is now somehow my personal obligation to revert your sourcable content deletions and then source the article myself. Go and revert it yourself... and then in good faith allow those who visit this AFD over the next few days to see the original article, and then decide for themselves based upon what others saw at the previous two AFDs. And in allowing them that vision, you may well find editors with the time to use these sources.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] But remember as you claim I am "unwilling"... its not my "job", and I'm a volunteer here just like anyone else. So you will just have to pardon me... as I've been a little busy in real life, and when editing have been busy in areas other that this one improvable article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Worth noting, were this a real person, and due to his wide coverage in so many reliable sources, his notability per guideline would not even be the least in doubt. But as he is fictional, we instead look to the manual of style for fiction... which quite properly states "the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources." We're not talking about a Pokeman character. With the reams of reliable sources available, this is emminently do-able. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add the new references to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 03:38, December 27, 2010
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rusty_Ryan_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1144336573"