Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Alexander Dewar


 * 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 userfy. The consensus is that although the subject of the article is only marginally notable at this time, with improvement and incubation, the article has the potential to become worthy of inclusion in the future. Since has volunteered to work on the article, I have userfied the article to User:Drchriswilliams/Ryan Alexander Dewar. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Ryan Alexander Dewar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable director lacking non-trivial support. The article has a lot of references, but they are trivial in nature. Most are either one line comments about the individual or do not even mention the article subject. red dogsix (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience  t 01:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience  t 01:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience  t 01:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Weak delete Lots of references, but mainly passing mentions. Seems to fail WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG as a result. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Following Guidlines, May Require Editing Opossed to Deletion - Following the links to notability and inclusion guidelines, the source uses secondary sources and multiple newspaper articles and websites, as well as film sites. The article is notable but may require structural help from other editors to provide fuller use of the links included.Editorincrime (talk)
 * Editorincrime's interpretation is not correct. The article has been nominated for deletion. This does allow a small amount of time for any problems to be rectified before a decision is made. The nomination for deletion is around notability. As a filmmaker there will need to be enough evidence within the article, that the subject can demonstrably meet the criteria set out in WP:CREATIVE. There are many links that have been put in the article but this will not be enough to stop a decision to delete. Good quality sources are considered to be those written by journalists and published in national newspapers. Appearing in IMDB does not demonstrate notability. Also anyone can put some unchecked promotional material on a blog, so the inclusion of pages from someone's blog generally isn't viewed as helping establish notability on Wikipedia. So, my advice to anyone who thinks that this article is worth keeping, I would suggest you register a "keep" vote on this page but more importantly that you make good use of the few days remaining before any decision on notability. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Improve References are significant but needs structural improvement Kemosakeyouknow (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC) — Kemosakeyouknow (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Kemosakeyouknow (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Musicsource87 (talk • contribs).
 * Comment - The references are far from significant. They are at best trivial in nature. red dogsix (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - reddogsix appears to be relentlessly harnessing a disruptive and unhelpful approach at improving the article as well as assigned images on wikimedia commons through attempted speedy deletion of public domain imagery. Please be constructive in nature with suggestions of improvement and sourcing further links and data or edits within the article as we appreciate your comments, suggestions and advice. As above, contest your personal view using the word trivial sources pertaining national and local press, alternative film websites such as IMDB, official filmmaker site. Written magazine editions also exist though not online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rysod (talk • contribs) 21:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)  — Rysod (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As you have acknowledged you are the subject of the article, I suggest there is a bias in your comment. I suggest you read you read WP:AGF before responding again to my comments. I will repeat what was said before, "The article has a lot of references, but they are trivial in nature. Most are either one line comments about the individual or do not even mention the article subject." This is trivial coverage.  Your comment that IMBD  is a usable source shows your misunderstanding of how Wikipedia notability works.  IMDB is far from independent.  Read Drchriswilliams above for more help. It is the author's burden to insure the article meets Wikipedia inclusion standards. If the support does not exist, then per Wikipedia guidelines, it is not notable per Wikipedia.    red <b style="color:#000;">dog</b><i style="color:#000;">six</i> (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Comment: I have tried quite hard to improve what (at the time it was nominated) was a very badly written article. I have to say that reddogsix has also made several constructive edits and I cannot see what there is to be gained by anyone suggesting otherwise. Unfortunately I have not seen enough evidence that WP:CREATIVE has been met, nor WP:GNG. This filmmaker has a lot to be proud of, but has not yet received the level of coverage needed to demonstrate the notability that is required of the subject of a Wikipedia article. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment: this is the classic, marginal, and up and coming creative person. Perhaps we can re-list this debate again? I would not be against userfication. Bearian (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: (in response to Bearian's suggestion about userfication). I had considered userfication previously and so I feel I should explain why I hadn't initially pursued this. I put in quite a lot of work to improve the content and rework material of this article so that it was in an appropriate format for Wikipedia. This also included some efforts to educate a major contributor- Rysod, who was going back and reapplying edits that were causing problems such as overlinking. However, a lack of familiarity with Wikipedia's Manual of Style is not the major issue. I still have concerns about the role of this editor which are not resolved. It has been suggested that the creator of this article, Rysod has a significant conflict of interest to declare, but this editor has not made any declaration relating to this. There is a maintenance tag relating to this which would need to be removed for userfication to occur. Rysod has also attacked another editor when they were trying to intervene against suspected copyright violations- there has been no retraction of this nor any apology. This may have put other editors off working on the article- it has now been been 11 days since anyone has made any edits to the article. So I would be against userfication to the user namespace of creator Rysod. If the outcome of this discussion is userfication, I would be happy for the article to be moved into my own user namespace, having already become quite familiar with the subject matter and the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drchriswilliams (talk • contribs) 09:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfy- I agree with Bearian's assessment. There's indication he is on the rise but he hasn't had enough notable projects yet. Perhaps userfy and improve. —Мандичка YO 😜 12:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfy: Having outlined my concerns and having given further thought to recent comments, I have withdrawn my vote for deletion, I'm now more confident that efforts to userfy the content of this article would not be futile. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2015 (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.