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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Long (producer)[edit]

Ryan Long (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biographical article with strong assertions to notability, but only one of the sources mentions the author at all, and that source (ref. 1) has many comments suggesting that it might be a hoax or scam. I was disturbed by this edit [1] where an account connected to an organization mentioned in the article said that he was not involved in the organization. It looks like GNG is not passed and that all sourcing should be taken very skeptically. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with some of the concerns of Michael Scott Cuthbert. About the official page claiming he was not a member of the organization, the fact remains that Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and several other notable sources link Long with the event. I suggest we keep the page but change some of the language. I chalk most of the comments left on "ripoff report" or elsewhere up to simply a few upset people. Either way, internet comments are not reputable sources. My vote is keep DrSangChi (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. The articles from Variety, LA Times and Hollywood Reporter are substantial enough to push him over the GNG threshold. CaptainQuality (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Substantial? the Variety and LA Times articles never mention him as far as I can tell. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Im sorry. You are right about the LA Times, and Variety. But actually all the other major articles do not only mention him, but go into quite a lot of detail about him. The Hollywood Reporter article interviewed him as the producer of the event, and links him with the unite4: humanity event. Also the Yahoo Finance Articles goes into detail about him and links him with both events. The Presspass LA Article mentions him as well. This, I believe, when combined with the press from Variety and the photographs from LA Times, should be enough. -- CaptainQuality (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I'm still in the disagree camp, but these links will be helpful for others to decide. (fixed tiny typo in yahoo link) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the current article is still currently questionable despite the current coverage. SwisterTwister talk 03:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per the sources provided. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 21:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per argument below edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 07:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are no reliable sources that substantially discuss him, just press releases. The Yahoo item is explicitly marked as being a press release in conspicuous italics at the bottom of the page. This news release contains forward-looking statements ... I do not think we have ever discussed PresspassLA as a reliable source, but I read the article as a press release, for it goes to considerable trouble to mention him in connection with an event where known reliable sources do not. Nothing else is any better. This article is PR entirely, relying on PR sources. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete With the exception of the very light coverage in the Hollywood Reporter, the references used amount to trivial mentions in insignificant or non-independent publications. JSFarman (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per norm. I see no evidence of notability neither do I see how WP:GNG is passed. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:42, 8 February 2016 (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.