Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rusty Ryan (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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Rusty Ryan
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Still no verification as to the independent notability of this character. seresin ( ¡? )  00:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Tons of passing mentions, but I could only find one news story that actually seems to focus on the character:, and this interview with Brad Pitt about the role:, which is mostly him blathering. Aside from just giving a plot summary focussed on Ryan, this article contributes nothing, and gives no evidence that the character has any independent notability. There are stacks of other likely non-notable fictional character pages, but that doesn't excuse this one. Fences and windows (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability can't be inherited from the film and the character isn't notable on its own. Drawn Some (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP this article was put up for deletion just 9 days ago. Nominator says "still no verification". First of all, the article was just closed today by nominator. Second, per WP:DEADLINE there is no deadline for these articles to be cleaned up. Third, there appears like there is a lot of metion of this character in google news. Ikip (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That AfD was last year. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh thats embarassing. Ikip (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per User:Fences and windows and his "Tons of passing mentions". Guideline does not demand that sources must absolutely be substantial and in-depth as long as they are not trivial: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". "number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred". Sources only need to be non-trivial when the mere existence of these sources is used to establish notability. That's not the case here, as a major character in a major film series is easily confirmed.  Character notability exists as part of the film's notability, and is not inherited from it. The two are intertwined like a strong rope. One does not exist without the other. Pity that this article was not spourced since the last AfD. but wiki has no WP:DEADLINE that this must be done, and has as long as it takes... impatience aside. Tag the kept article or improve it. AFD is not for WP:CLEANUP.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep central character in series of films. Some out-of-universe material should be available in a plethora of film magazines and Pitt bio etc. Casliber (talk · contribs)
 * Keep excellent article, just needs references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of characters from the Ocean's Trilogy. We've got a lot of "He's a main character, he must be notable!" but no explanation of where we're going to get sources that deal with this character other than in a glancing way in discussions of the films or Brad Pitt. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect The material is almost all plot oriented, without any "meat" to the article.  Being portrayed by a "star" does not make any individual character notable for a WP article.  Heck -- "Mammy (Gone with the Wind) " does not get her own article - and it was an Oscar-winning performance.  (not an argument in itself, of course).  Collect (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but add specific references to specific scenes, & look for criticism, Some of the reviews must discuss the character.   The only requirement in WP:NOT is that the treatment of the overall work be not entirely plot, & it isn't.  A major character in a group of medium-important films. It's clearer to treat major characters separately, I suppose it would be acceptable to merge, if the entire content were merged, but experience shows that it's easier to keep significant content if the article is separate. DGG (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep solid article on notable character. Ample reliable and verifiable sources are available and should be added to expand and improve article further. Alansohn (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources exist to show independent notability. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The character is a main character in 3 quite notable movies. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The character is notable, and there is enough information to warrant his own article(as opposed to be combined with others).  D r e a m Focus  02:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. All I can see is editors saying they like the article, that he's a character in three notable films, and that lots of sources refer to him. Please present some sources that show independent notability of this character, and edit the article so that it is not just an unsourced plot summary. If that can't be done, then why exactly should we keep the article? Fences and windows (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no notability independent of the film. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Interesting to see that four keep !votes arrived here within two and a half hours of a rescue tag being added, while no work whatsoever has been done to the article. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep due to obvious notability (played by a blue link actor in multiple successful films discussed in numerous reliable sources). Interesting to see that most of those voting to delete have made no effort to search for sources or improve the article in question.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A Nobody, you might want to retract that. I support deletion, and I've actually bothered looking for and presenting sources rather than just asserting that they exist (see above), and I couldn't find anything substantial to work with. That doesn't mean that it can't be done, but so far this AfD is simply a talking shop. Fences and windows (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have found and added somewhat to the actual article (I am the only one to edit it since nomination) and now going through the remarkable number of sources available on Google News to see what can be added in the way of a reception section. That interview you cite could be helpful in the production section and anyway, I was not directing my comment at you, which is why I didn't say "all"; rather it was a reply to comment directly above mine.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for snapping. Good luck with expanding it. Fences and windows (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.