Talk:Ryan Potter

Sources for a BLP article

There is only one reliable source on this article that I can see, the Pittsburgh Trib article, and that is NOT about the subject of the article. It is about the show he is in. Not the same thing. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There is clearly more than one reliable source. Yes, several are Nickelodeon sources which do not establish notability, but I don't think anyone is honestly going to maintain that they aren't reliable with regards to his early life, where he was born, etc. Notability/fanbase is established through numerous teen/tween "fan" sites. No, they're NOT Pulitzer Prize winning sources that I would use to add contentious material to a BLP, but they're clearly legit enough media reps to be invited to the set by Nickelodeon to interview the stars, etc, and DO establish significant coverage/fanbase amongst the target audience. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Fan sites are specifically excluded as reliable sources. See WP:RS. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

These aren't fan-created blogs. By "fan" sites I mean they're industry entertainment shows made specifically to cater to teen audiences just like "Tiger Beat" or "16 Magazine" when we were kids (the only difference is now they're primarily online based, just like everything else). Just to be clear, I'm not some 12-year-old "fan" and I've never even seen the show. I'm a full grown adult who kept hearing about his charity work and advocacy, so I looked him up and a 10 second Google search turned up numerous sources proving, beyond any doubt, that he's the lead star of his own show on the #1 kids network in the United States, which has now been renewed for a second season and has garnered a large "fan base" among it's intended audience (not us, or the columnists at the New York Times). Yes, the sources about his early/personal life are mainly primary sources (Nickelodeon), but I think they would know when/where he was born, etc.. The only possibly contentious material is his involvement in the No H8 campaign, and again, I can't fathom for one minute that an organization with as much clout and celebrity endorsements as they have, would photoshop and lie about a 16y/o kid's involvement with them. Bottom line, all BLP info on the page is innocuous or else it's reliably sourced (I believe, to any reasonable person's satisfaction). Notability is established by the numerous legit sources catering to (but not run by) "teen" audiences. If you honestly believe we need to wait for the 40+ y/o editors at the New York Times to cover a child/teen star before we can believe they're notable among kids/teens, then we're never going to agree on this. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

So you are now saying the sources are fan magazines? I was thinking they were fan edited type sites like IMdB. That may be different. Lemme do some checking on the reliability of those and I'll get back to ya. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. They cater to teen/tween audiences' interests, but they're not run by teen fans. Just one example is Popstar! which is also a print magazine (an Ebay search of Potter's name turns up numerous pinups/articles from various print magazines catering to teens) but also has a YouTube channel (with roughly a dozen interviews just with this one kid). The same with ClevverTV (although I don't believe they're in print, how many Pulitzer Prize winning papers have gone out of business in the last 5 years?), they are an entertainment website (Clevvertv.com), which uploads/hosts their videos on Youtube and they've been interviewing all the top Disney/Nick stars for years (approx. half a dozen interviews with just this one kid). The same with StuffWeLike.com, Fanlala, etc, they're all legit industry sites run by full-grown adults and are routinely invited to all the red carpet events and studio sets by Disney and Nickelodeon for pre-arranged interviews of all their young stars (see their individual Youtube channels for an overview their history, their "wheelhouse", how long they've been going, etc). Some cover a wider variety of topics (StuffWeLike), but searching the keyword "Nickelodeon" on their channel (the video sourced from them on this page is their "sister" channel "TheShadowFan") and it shows they've taken a particular liking to Supah Ninjas (for some reason). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

So I looked at each and every source in detail. There is still not enough referencing on the article to meet WP:ACTOR or WP:GNG:

• Nick and Nick press...not independent, so no help with notability (1)(2)(6)(20)
• AOL Kids-short interview with subject of article, nothing else. does nothing to show notability. Also nothing to indicate any fact checking process, so not reliable (3)
• Fanlala- no indication of any fact checking, also user edited content--not reliable (4)(13)
• Aisiance Magazine-user edited, not reliable (5)
• Alloy TV-redirects to YouTube and what appears to be a promo video, not independent (7)
• Stuffwelike.com--redirects to a youtube video of the subject talking, not independent (8)
• Popstar!-redirects to yet another youtube promo vid of the subject of the article, not independent (9)YouTube vid of stars at an award ceremony--might have helped notability if he had won something, but he didn't (17)
• Clevver TV--same as the last three (10)
• RBR.com--article about Nick tv's program line up, not about subject. not on point, does nothing for notability (11)
• Pittsburgh Tribune-Review--Reliable source, but article not on point, about the show, not the subject. does nothing for notability (12)
• TVGuide.com--possibly reliable source, article not on point, about the show, not the subject. does nothing for notability(14)
• TV by the numbers--questionable reliability, but article is on show, not subject. does nothing for notability (15)
• Entertainment Weekly--again, article is on the show, not the subject, does nothing for notability (16)
• Amazon--The fact that a show he is in is available on amazon says nothing about his notability. Also, Amazon is not a reliable source, user edited(18)
• Clevver TV--Article about an event that only gives passing mention to the subject as attending. does nothing for notability(19)
• No H8 CAmpaign--not a reliable secondary source, only content is a brief interview of subject. again, does nothing for notability(21)

So I stand by my original critique. You are welcome to take your sources to RSN if you wish. But lacking any better sources, I will BLPPROD it tomorrow, and AfD after that if I must. Why? A search of Google news turned up only the Pittsburgh Trib review, which you already have, and a bunch of stuff from unreliable sources. If he wins an award, or has a feature article written about him somewhere, maybe then he will be notable. Not now. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If you looked "in detail", then we're obviously seeing two different things.

• Nick and Nick press...as previously stated, not cited to establish notability, simply establishes he's on the show and "background" info on early/personal life.
• AOL Kids - is a subsidiary of AOL, never heard anyone question their fact checking.
• Fanlala #4 - cites info confirmed by Nick, just gives a little more detail, but if the interview is user edited (which I don't see any evidence of) then my mistake.
• Fanlala #13 - Not sure how and/or why you would need further "fact checking" of an in-studio, on-camera interview with the subject himself.
• Asiance Magazine - again didn't see any evidence that it's user edited, but if it is then my mistake.
• Alloy TV - yes the link is direct to the youtube channel AlloyTV - Subsidiary of Teen.com and Alloy Media, LLC, a 10 second search of "My Day My Life" on the Youtube channel returns over 40 interviews they've done in the ongoing "My Day My Life" series with teen celebs (ON camera), don't know how one can doubt the validity of that with a straight face unless one honestly believes they have millions of dollars to access the world's top special effects artists and celebrity impersonators for no conceivable reason other than they enjoy deceiving teens/tweens.
• StuffWeLike - again, yes the link is direct to youtube channel - a 5 second search for "Supah" on the channel returns 9 videos ON the set with the cast/crew (including George Takei), don't know how one can doubt the validity of the info provided therein with a straight face, etc, etc, etc (see above).
• Popstar! - we're obviously going in circles now - yes the link(s) is/are direct link(s) to the interview(s) on youtube. 10 second search of the channel shows they've been going for over 6 years; literally hundreds of videos on set, the red carpet, behind the scenes, interviewing every teen star on earth; a dozen interviews with just this one kid; don't see how/why anyone could/would disbelieve their own eyes, etc, etc, (see above)
• ClevverTV - same as the last 3 (did you even look at the channels?); just one wing of ClevverTV.com; Youtube channel been going for more than four years; over half a million subs; obviously well-connected with Nick/Disney; hundreds of interviews on studio sets, red carpet, etc, with every teen star on earth; numerous with just this one star (including this one in their own "in house" studio where they've conducted hundreds of others), etc, (see above)
• RBR cited to establish the show is returning not notability (although, unsuccessful/unpopular shows with unpopular stars don't usually get renewed for a second season).
• Again, cited to establish the show was renewed for a second season and is set to begin in 2 weeks, not for notability.
• TV Guide - cited to establish the show premired in January 2011 (to avoid pesky citation tags), not to establish notability; Never heard anyone question TV Guide's reliable when it comes to when TV shows air, etc, so I won't even dignify the absurdity of it.
• TVByTheNumbers - Cited to establish the appearance, not notability; again, never heard anyone question TVByTheNumbers, so I'm beginning to wonder what types of Wikipedia articles one would have been accustomed to editing in order to do so (certainly not any about TV shows/stars).
• Entertainment Weekly - Again, cited to establish the appearance, not notability
• Amazon - Link is to the episode and to verify that he is/was in it (no knowledge of "user editing" of episodes hosted there) Same as citing any book/journal that one would have to purchase to verify, does nothing to establish notability because it's not intended to; simply verifies the info within the text passsage(s) of the article that it's cited to support.
• ClevverTV ("parent" site to the youtube channel you were so mystified by); Story all about subject's charity work is hardly "passing mention"; Regardless, the particular story is cited to support the info about his charity work; anyone who needs more than a perceived "passing mention" can conduct a 5 second search of the subject's name and find over 100 hits to articles about him on the site (not cited in the article since it seems patently absurd to cite 100 articles just to prove what should be painfully obvious given everything else.)
• Noh8 Campaign - Again, not cited to establish notability; more than reliable enough to verify the info it supports within this article.

So I stand by my original response. You are welcome to BLPPROD it tomorrow, but you should probably just AFD it since we obviously disagree. Why? All of the Youtube videos I directly cited to are simply hosted there by legit teen entertainment sites (a glance at the Youtube channel pages will take anyone to the "parent" sites within one or two clicks, but I'll be happy to link directly to the websites if editors honestly believe that's too difficult for the average person to grasp.) I simply do not interpret Wikipedia's guidelines as indicating that one needs to win an award when there are already dozens of ON-camera interviews (combining on-camera, on-set, red-carpet interviews with Popstar!, ClevverTV, Fanlala, etc) establishing a significant fan base and coverage among teen audiences and the entertainment industry outlets designed for them (I simply thought it absurd that anyone would expect them to all to be cited here in order to get the gist of the nature of his notability). If I'm wrong then fine, but it's going to take more than the assessment of an editor who questions AOL, TV Guide, TVByTheNumbers, etc, to convince me. We need more eyes here (sorry, but, for the numerous reasons I've outlined above, yours clearly aren't enough). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A reader shouldn't have to search for verification. We are supposed to provide it for him. What people say about themselves, in other words, interviews, are of no use in showing notability. Mike Wallace could have interviewed him on Sixty minutes and that would not make that interview a reliable source. Since anyone can put a video on youtube it is never a reliable source. And the definition of a reliable source is a source that has some sort of fact-checking. I will agree that the AOL site belongs to AOL, but so what? I have never encountered anyone sourcing to AOL, but Yahoo is not considered a reliable source, so I don't know why AOL would be reliable. Have you ever even read WP:RS? You sure don't seem to have any sort of grip on what it says. But this is a WP:BLP. All these unreliable sources are a problem. Not to mention that you haven't shown notability. He doesn't meet WP:BASIC or WP:ENT. Have a nice night. I am guessing we will be talking at AfD tomorrow. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if these were just videos the subject made of himself, then I would agree. The difference is these are interviews with established entertainment sites which cover a wide variety of stars from television and film (yes, it's not hard-hitting news, but given the scope of the subjects they cover; stars from various television channels, in various films, from varying distributors/production companies, etc, they're obviously not just some puppet for Nickelodeon). Like I said, these are basically this generation's version of Teen Beat, Tiger Beat, etc (does anyone honestly believe kids today still flip through printed magazines?). And yes, I would agree, if he was making libelous accusations about another living person or unsubstantiated claims about his own notability, then that would be a problem. But simply taking a subject's word for how they got into show business (when it's already established beyond any and all doubt that they're on a TV show), or that they studied martial arts as an eight year old (I'm pretty sure even the NYTimes would be willing to take his word for that), etc, is hardly contentious BLP material that would require this rigorous "fact-checking" you're going on about. Like I said, I can relink the references to the "parent" sites which keep their videos hosted on Youtube (links sometimes change or get broken, so I've found it's easier to link directly to CNN's or NBC's or any other agency's and/or outlet's Youtube videos directly). So we're back to square one. All facts stated within the article: where/when he was born, that he's the star of a show on Nickelodeon, his charity work, etc, I believe is all sufficiently sourced to any reasonable person's satisfaction, and the "teen magazine" sources (Popstaronline.com, ClevverTV.com, Fanlala.com, Bop and Tiger Beat, etc, establish significant coverage and "fanbase" through literally hours of coverage/interviews of/with him. If we get a couple more people in here who think I should re-route links to cite the "parent" websites instead, then I'll do it, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to pacify an editor who's never even heard of TV Guide or TVByTheNumbers, etc. It's just absurdity. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not questioning the veracity of any facts in this article. I am contesting the dude's notability. A few youtube vids of him blathering on about himself do not notability make. Articles about him in reliable sources show that. There are none. There are a couple articles about the show. There is an article about the entire season, all the shows, on Nick. There are none on him. What don't you get? Wikipedia is a tertiary source and only publishes on what others are writing about. No one is writing about this guy. He doesn't inherit notability from the show he is on. He has only had, according to what you have written, two roles on TV, both on Nick. He went to an award ceremony. Wow. That certainly must make him notable. If you cannot produce anything at all that has been written about him, which you apparently can't, he just isn't notable. You arguments clearly show you don't understand that notability is a separate issue from the reliability of the factual info. Please try to understand. You need reliable sources, which all those websites aren't, writing articles that are primarily about the subject of your article. There are none. And the contention that a 4 minute youtube video of a tween girl interviewing the subject of your article says anything about his notability is just silly. All that youtube crap is the 21st century version of press releases, which you can't use to show notability. You could waste your time arguing with me about the quality of your sources, or you could try to find one that is actually useful to show his notability.. I don't care. Other than writing a rationale for deletion, I am done with this nonsensical discussion. Buh-bye. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I addressed all of this in my first post. No, they're not hard-hitting Pulitzer Prize winning sources. Nobody is saying he's won the Nobel Peace Prize. He's notable to the demographic that he's notable with and the "teen" sources establish that (nothing more, nothing less). Like I said, there are not just a "few", but dozens of interviews with, and articles about, him (and I don't see a single person under the age of 25 doing the interviewing, let alone "tween") on the set, on the red carpet, etc. Yes, I would agree they're little more than press releases. The only difference is these are clearly sources independent from the network/show. What part of when I said the equivalent to "Tiger Beat, 16 magazine, etc" did you not understand? Of COURSE they're just fluff pieces. Nick, Disney, etc, provide the teen magazines/sites access to their stars in order to generate buzz for their shows and the teen magazines/sites sell magazines and/or generate advertisement revenue by covering them; it's a mutually beneficial relationship (exactly the same as People magazine or Entertainment Weekly, etc, that cover adult stars). No big news there. The POINT is that they wouldn't be able to sell magazines and/or generate hits on their websites if the kid didn't have a fan base. We've basically interpreted the guidelines and arrived at two different conclusions. Like I said, I can cite the websites instead (and many do include articles accompanying the videos), but I'm not going to knock myself out for someone who has just now woken up to what I said six hours ago. I repeatedly stated some sources were establishing factual info, and some were establishing teen "fanbase" notability, so the assertion that "my arguments" show I don't know the difference when I was responding to your circular justifications is just laughable. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If a source isn't reliable, it can't establish anything. Articles about the show the boy is in say nothing about him. And just because the "readership" of the unreliable websites that post the non notable interviews of the boy is the same as old time fan magazines doesn't make them a reliable source. newspaper websites are considered reliable here. Yahoo isn't. That comparison is a red herring. but even if they were reliable sources, there is no "substantial coverage", as required by WP:GNG in any of them. Gtwfan52 (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

About account of him on IG

I want to know 41.186.194.99 (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)