Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Potter


 * 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   delete. T. Canens (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Potter

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:ENT. One significant role, minor coverage. Sum mer PhD (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:ENT. - SudoGhost&trade; 10:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NotJustYet. Sorry Supah Ninjas fans, but his one recurring role in that notable series fails WP:ENT.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I've never seen his show, nor do I ever care to do so. While I agree the subject is certainly on the margins of WP:ENT in terms of career at this point, he does certainly appear to have a "large fan base" which is a vaguely enough defined requirement to make this a viable article for now. It could certainly do with more references, but I don't see the point of deleting it when it is a reasonably encyclopedic stub that is free of overly-fawning coverage. --Esprqii (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no source showing this "large fan base", nor does the article reflect this. It does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. - SudoGhost&trade; 23:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pardon, but if User:Esprqii were (hint) able to source "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following" for this actor, and not just the series, then the actor might be seen as notable per WP:ENT. However, I do agree that this appears not to be the case and the article fails to show notability for the actor.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, drive-by rating. Anyway, this kind of deletion is always mystifying to me. The actor stars in a television series on a US network--there is no doubt of that. To me, that appearance alone meets the basic GNG of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If he were an extra in the series with one line, then that's different, but this is the lead role. As far as the vague "large fan base" requirement, that seems easy enough to fill; he has a significant teen following, as evidenced by various fan clubs, Facebook page, blogs, etc. any Google search can turn up. I suppose those could be listed as ELs, but my sense of the purpose of that requirement is to contrast him with the extra with one line who would not have a following at all. As long as the subject is verifiable, let's remember this is WP:NOTPAPER. BTW, actor bios are not usually my thing; he just happened to be born in an area covered by a project I'm active with. --Esprqii (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * His appearance in a show cannot reasonably be considered "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." He is an actor in the show. From the show, we know nothing significant about him, other than his name and a vague physical description. Additionally, as the show is the reason for his purported notability, it is hardly independent. The existence of fan clubs, Facebook pages, blogs, etc. shows there is some effort to either organize or drum up a following. Reliable sources evidencing a large fan base or cult following is something else entirely, IMO. Basically, the WP:ENT guideline seems to draw a sharp line between an actor with one significant role (or any number of minor roles) and those who have had multiple significant roles in notable productions. This actor has one significant role and very little coverage in independent reliable sources. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the second criteria of WP:ENT, Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following., needs to be covered in multiple reliable, third-party sources if it is used as the reason to keep an article. Most actors will not meet #2 without also meeting #1. - SudoGhost&trade; 08:52, 17 July 2011 (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.