Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Ryan (recovery advocate)


 * 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. Consensus is that the topic is notable, and that although the article article needs cleanup, deletion is not the best way to accomplish this. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Tim Ryan (recovery advocate)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreliable sources, at least two main editors strongly connected, one of them already blocked. For me subject looks totally unnotable. Please let's start a discussion Petr Metr (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I haven't checked all the sources (some of which are blocked for me in Europe and aren't always easy to get hold of - notably, major newspapers like Chicago Tribune), but two things stood out. The National Safety Council citation looks sound; and the fact that in July 2017 A&E Networks broadcast an hour-long special about him, see e.g. 1 and 2. Ref [2] (which is Chicago Tribune) also records other news coverage, including in Newsweek.
 * (I was rather surprised. With the article creator blocked for socking, I was fully expecting to be investigating a WP:REFBOMBing. But even the minor citations seem to be relevant minor citations, with something more than passing mentions.) Narky Blert (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 7.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 22:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Articles created through undisclosed payment are not always inherently unencyclopedic, and this appears to be one such case. Quite a lot of in-depth coverage on the subject, including both biographical and recent event related coverage. As for notability, the Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, CBS Chicago and Northwest Herald have written articles about the subject, just to name a few. Meets WP:NBIO. Nanophosis (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  01:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  01:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  01:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * delete So he put out a book, did a book tour, and got a lot of press during that. With Bischoff Hervey, a brand-building TV production company (source), he has a special on cable TV and got some press promoting that. What is not that kind of thing, are bad sources like the "drug rehab" blog thing. This overly elaborate ... thing is just PR slag.  We could maybe have an article on this person, but this is nothing like it. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not the greatest article in the world, but the various national-level media sources aren't "unreliable". Basie (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No but they are obvious PR machination and not really independent -- see footnote 3 on Notability by the way. I don't much like WP being manipulated. Jytdog (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, to an extent I sympathise with that point of view because when you review a blunt Google news search you get a lot of the same soundbites. Still, I suppose that's not surprising... the A&E special probably got decent ratings, there's the book, and he's scattered across YouTube. Spikes in popularity tend to lead to a lot of people writing about basically the same thing for awhile. But I just don't think I can reasonably look at the wide variety of different sources out there and say, "All of these are part of the PR machine." Then again I don't live in the US, so maybe I haven't experienced the PR machine at close enough range... Basie (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep that is how a PR machine works. You go from town to town and your advance team lets the local press at each town or city know you are coming, and every place gets the same human interest story.  Jytdog (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. There really ought to be a guideline WP:IGNORETHECRUD. A multiplicity of cruddy references does not make a topic non-notable. Notability is decided by the best references, irrespective of the cruddy ones. Narky Blert (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, TNT exists for very good reason. We do not honor our mission or our readers by keeping crud. We do not ignore crud, and your protestations would be more... i don't know, persuasive, if you actually fixed the article and showed it is possible to have a well-sourced, solid piece on this person. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: The subject has reliable primary & secondary resources.NANExcella (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: for now, per Jytdog. Perhaps the article can be published again by an uninvolved editor using less promo. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Article has issues, but the subject has enough coverage to be notable. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep it still stinks of the promotional paid editing, but being a noted guest at a State of the Union speech and the subject of an hour-long show on A&E (TV channel) should be enough to meet GNG, even with the concerns about placed PR pieces. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 06:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:05, 22 June 2018 (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.