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. There is a rough consensus that the article meets the notability guideline and with the argument that the article falls under BLP1E having been answered by some of those arguing to keep leaving no overriding policy reason for deletion, I am closing as keep. Davewild (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 January 15.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Ryan A. Conklin[edit]

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

Possibly fails notability because all or most of the references are dubious, either not mentioning the subject at all, or do not meet WP:RS. I'm not even sure if this is about a real person or a character in a movie of TV show. Kudpung (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's been in two reality TV series, one of which he was the star, and has written a book. Does that not qualify for notability?

As for the references, they include articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post, a page on the United States Army's website, episodes of The Real World in which information about him and his life was mentioned or depicted, etc. What's dubious about them? Nightscream (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's only been in the one TV series, and to say that he was a star when there were half a dozen others is a stretch. There is not evidence that his book qualifies him for notability per WP:AUTHOR. The latter two sources you mention are probably not reliable, both having an obvious promotinal interest and one being primary. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has been in two. After being on the Real World, he had an MTV special completely about him. Rockhead126 (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I missed The Real World Presents: Return to Duty, but it's not a second series, it's a single episode kiss-off because he missed the reunion episode. The fact that it doesn't even have an article, nor is it even mentioned at The Real World: Brooklyn highlights its lack of significance. bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- It's not like he's just being mentioned in his hometown newspaper. Most of these are big-name sources, and he's clearly mentioned in all of them. He's done more than enough to be eligible. Rockhead126 (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Real World: Brooklyn, which is his claim to fame, and the info there is both concise and reasonably well-sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient sources from reliably sourced references denote that subject of article meets WP:GNG and individual meets WP:BASIC. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Real World: Brooklyn per Starblind. He fails WP:MILPEOPLE utterly, and his notability is completely associated with one event. None of the other... characters? Contestants? Whatever the term is, none of the others are notable for thier own articles, and neither is Conklin. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's been in two TV shows (a series and a 2009 documentary that focuses on him), has written a memoir, and has been profiled in both The New York Times and The Washington Post. Nightscream (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's been the subject of articles in multiple reliable and verifiable sources, all establishing notability. Alansohn (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Starblind and Bahamut, no lasting notability here and although there is coverage I don't believe it qualifies as "significant" as required in WP:GNG and WP:MILMOS/N. Anotherclown (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I undid a NAC close of this as clearly being wrong. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted above, the subject's been featured in a documentary and the subject of separate pieces by The New York Times and The Washington Post, which satisfies the general notability guidelines. I'm not convinced WP:BIO1E applies, since there's not really an event he's associated with, unless you count the war in Iraq. I don't think a being on a TV show is what WP:BIO1E was designed for. 28bytes (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm the nominator so can't !vote. However, as the original closure of this RfA was subject to controversy (nothing to do with the nomination), I'll offer some clarifications. The article when I tagged it for AfD had slumbered for nearly a month as an unpatrolled new article because its notability was obviously sufficiently unclear that no patrollers could see their way clear to either passing it as patrolled, or even tagging it for attention. Patrolling from the back of the backlog, I In spite of the sources, or additions refs that could have been added later, had the article had been PRODed, and if no one had intervened to contest the PROD within 7 days, it would have been procedurally deleted. I occasionally send an unclear article to AfD, not from any personal policy of deletionism (there isn't one), but because of all the deletion procedures, it is the fairest, and I don't personally care which way the community's decision falls - all I want is a consensus as to whether an article stays, goes, or gets merged. The state of the sources at the time of tagging was:

http://www.mtv.com/shows/return_to_duty/series.jhtml video about a movie, not about the subject
http://www.anangelfromhell.com/author.php bio, not sure who wrote this web site about Conklin's book
http://www.anangelfromhell.com/author.php video about a movie, not about the subject
http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/31/48/31_48_sp_real_world_review.html not sure if this is print media or only a web site; Local Brooklyn news - not substantial national coverage
http://www.mtv.com/videos/real-world-brooklyn-ep-5-friends-and-enemies/1603847/playlist.jhtml video about a movie, not about the subject
http://www.mtv.com/shows/real_world/brooklyn/cast_member.jhtml?personalityId=10601 video about a movie, not about the subject. Links to a brief bio of the subject
http://www.mtv.com/shows/real_world/brooklyn/episode.jhtml?episodeID=148951 not sure what this web page is supposed to depict
http://www.mtv.com/videos/real-world-brooklyn-reunion/1607912/playlist.jhtml video about a movie, appears to be about a TV show
http://www.realtelevision.net/2009/11/05/return-to-duty/ appear to be about 'MTV’S “RETURN TO DUTY” TAKES AN EMOTIONAL JOURNEY WITH “THE REAL WORLD: BROOKLYN’S” RYAN CONKLIN AS HE RETURNS TO THE BATTLEFIELDS OF IRAQ' Web source, possibly not RS but may contribute to notability as it appears to be about a documentary about some part of Conkllin's life.
http://tv.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/arts/television/11return.html?_r=2 NYT - an RS. A review about a TV show that appears to be 'mindless “Real World” reality series' about Conklin.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/10/AR2009111022159.html Washingtojn Post is an RS. A review about a TV show 'with depressing results' that appears to be about Conklin, a '23-year-old layabout on "The Real World: Brooklyn," taped in 2008 and seen this year, Ryan Conklin didn't leave much of an impression.'
http://www.amazon.com/Angel-Hell-Ryan-Conklin/dp/0425233944/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top, not a Wikipedia RS. A listing of a single book written by Conklin.

The subject is clearly not an author of note, is not a professional actor, and is not a war hero. What is he exactly? And what, if any, criteria for notability does he sufficiently fullfil, and what reliable sources, if any, assert that notability. Newspapers don't make notability, they confirm it. Kudpung (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with RightCowLeftCoast above that the subject appears to meet WP:BASIC due to the NYT and Post articles... is there a need to further categorize him? 28bytes (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tons of references from third-party sources in the national media - at least some of which are evidently about Conklin personally, not the TV show, so BLP1E really doesn't apply. This isn't even a borderline case. I agree that closing the AfD early was probably a bad idea in procedural terms (since there isn't a universal consensus to keep), but the result of the closure was correct. Walton^One 12:01, 16 January 2011 (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.