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. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Ryan[edit]

*Keep per everyone Non-notable 9/11 conspiracy theorist, fails WP:BIO Violates WP:VAIN. Morton devonshire 20:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Peephole 20:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I managed to find two articles by major news organizations, each of which devotes two sentences to him: this reuters article and this nytimes article (which may be reprinted elsewhere). Also, even this highly sympathetic village voice treatment only gives him one sentence. All other ghits appear to be blogs and fringe conspiracy sites. I have to conclude that this guy doesn't rate an encyclopedic entry. A cumulative five sentences of major news org coverage doesn't cut it. My Alt Account 21:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:VAIN you could even toss WP:NOT into it. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 22:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Crockspot 22:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TGreenburg
• Delete per nom - but lets try to add some balance to the mentions of him in other 9/11 conspiracy articles. GabrielF 00:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article says "He was included in a article by the International Herald Tribune". That's not sufficient notability. People get quoted all the time in newspapers. I've even been on the news a few times, but I'm not notable. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 00:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually I checked that IHT article (you have to look at the page source since the link was formatted improperly and clicking it won't do anything) - there's no mention of Kevin Ryan. GabrielF 00:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 01:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cruft.--Tbeatty 02:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep passes WP:BIO in my opinion--Pussy Galore 04:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC) indefinitely banned for trolling[reply]

Probably sockpuppet. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^^^Definitely nonsense. I got so fed up with this nonsense I requested a check user be done on myself. "No malicous activity from this IP". Kindly try to assume good faith in future. --Pussy Galore 22:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete these conspiracy theorists are not notable until they get significant media coverage. WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 06:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn--MONGO 09:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN person. Arbusto 17:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep belongs to "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" --Mikaelbook — Possible single purpose account: Mikaelbook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Delete NN person (disagree with probably sock puppet above). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events."

Additionally, I'd remind that he is cited and/or discussed in a number of different places, including Democracy Now, Loose Change, and the other places mentioned on this page. If he is not dealt with here, he should have a dedicated section in another relevant article. But I think he is slightly too big to be a section within another article.--Antelope In Search Of Truth 04:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. RFerreira 05:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Aude --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 15:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per My Alt Account ... um, per some other guy's alt account, not my alternate account ... oh, you know what I mean. CWC(talk) 17:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a person of significance and notable achievement, once we remove editorial slant --J henry waugh 18:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: J henry waugh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
• Keep - "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." - Shouldn't wikipedia be the place to contain info on this guy when people go searching for an unbiased source of information on him? Johnww2 18:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Johnww2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
• Delete per nom -- Patrick Berry 21:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- recently discussed on Democracy Now, interviewed in the Washington Post, etc. How on earth is that non-notable!? Locewtus 23:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Ryan is currently featured in the southbendtribune, torontostar, austinamericanstatesman, and the NYTimes. That is just for September. bov 21:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the South Bend Tribune item says he's giving a talk at South Bend, the other 3 mention him as just one example of the conspiracy believers. CWC(talk) 22:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability guidelines specifically exclude passing mentions as counting as independent coverage. Even if we did make an article the only thing it could say that would fir WP:RS would be "Kevin Ryan is a guy with non-standard ideas about 9/11". JoshuaZ 23:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, despite passing mentions here and there. Most importantly, if this ever were to be kept, and as pointed out by JoshuaZ, let's remember the only reliable info we have on this man is that he has zero credibility outside the small circle of conspiracy theorists. The article would need to be entirely rewritten with that perspective in mind. Pascal.Tesson 03:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Pascal.Tesson. --Aaron 05:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.