Talk:Jay Ryan

Who is Jay Ryan? Why do we care about him? Who has linked to it?

Wikipedia

B.J. Ryan This is not the Jay Ryan in request

Google Search

Apparently all three (3) were in request.

A baseball player [1]which is this one 1999_Minnesota_Twins
Actor Thomas Jay Ryan [2] Born: 1 August 1962; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; but not likely this one, The_Mysterious_Production_of_Eggs
An artist significant for posters, namely one on squirrels. [3]; Apparently with this band also, Dianogah.

Hangon explanation

Admin. I found an article in request for over two years. In an attempt to write it, several attempt have been made to Speed Deletetion. I can now see why this had been in the que for two years. meatclerk 02:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure you what this user thinks he's doing. He seems to be making random notes on an article page. He keeps blanking the talk page. I've asked him to do his homework elsewhere and come back when he's actually prepared to write the article, but he doesn't seem to think much of this. I suspect he's been drinking or something. —Hanuman Das 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the talk page (this page) shouldn't be blanked. Let's just try to help meatclerk along ... I suspect he has the best of intentions but just doesn't know the ropes yet. Brian 02:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

Hangon

I'm not the one that placed the hangon ... but I do support it. meatclerk is trying to create either an article or a disambig page here. Let's give him the chance to do that. My only point was to move the majority of the discussion from the article page to the discusion page --- which is where I think it belongs. However, *something* needs to remain on the article page or someone will come along and CSD the talk page as db-talk :-) Let's give meatclerk the day or two he's asked for ... My two cents. Brian 02:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

Thanks for your help. I'm going to dinner. Any help on creating a disambig would help. meatclerk 02:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how long are we to wait until meatclerk adds to the article? Hes eating dinner! SynergeticMaggot 03:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current disambig

Uh. I'm not sure if this is aloud on Wikipedia. A disambig page before any article are created? SynergeticMaggot 03:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's allowed. Be bold. I just created a disambig page and it should be useful in pointing to external references even if Wikipedia articles aren't yet written for each of the three entries. Let's just hangon and give meatclerk a chance to write at least stubs for those --- if necessary, I'll do it. It's fine to be quick with CSD on obvious nonsense (I know that I am) but here an editor is really acting in good faith WP:AGF as far as I can see and trying to create an article that's been requested for over two years. Sure, he's not going about it the best way, but let's try to be supportive and spend our CSD energy on all the obvious junk (I've tagged dozens just today). Thanks, Brian 03:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

ok, I just created stubs for three of the four articles and someone else got there first for the fourth. Now, the disambig page is completely legitimate - no need to even be bold :-) Now, the hard work starts --- each of those four stubs needs to be turned into a bona fide article. Brian 03:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

Sure, be bold. But not one of those pages gives any WP:V and might soon be deleted under every policy and guideline on Wikipedia. Thus, a disambig would have been in vain. I think this was all premature. SynergeticMaggot 03:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything should be fine now. Ardric47 04:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do a lot of RC and NP patrol and have flagged hundreds of articles for deletion. When something is clearly a violation of official policy then I'm quite willing to have it speedily deleted. However, Wikipedia is not paper and we do have time ... I appreciate Ardric47's help here ... at this point I think we have both a reasonable disambig page as well as acceptable stub articles that *do* pass WP:V. It's easy to delete (I do a lot of it with NP, RC, and VandalProof) - more difficult to create. In this case, I think the creation is probably worth the effort. Yes, SynergeticMaggot, it probably was premature and probably would have been better for meatclerk to have composed offline ... but I think we now have a reasonable and acceptable outcome. Thanks for your patience and working with us. Brian 05:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

Thanks for holding on all.

When I got the four Speedy Del I felt like I was working on a MSWindows machine again(FUD).

Short Story

If you look on my page, I've written a few articles already. I have PRODd, AfD and various other tasks. I by no means consider myself an expert or experienced. None the less, I gone into the Wikipedia:Articles_requested_for_more_than_two_years que to pick out some articles.

Jay Ryan was two years old. I wondered about it. It looked simple, but I know that something evil lay in wait. As you can see, three articles dead-ended to Jay Ryan. My investigation seem to have found various [Jay Ryan]s.

My next step was to connect the Jay Ryans. Get the Wikipedia article with the correct person. I was doing just that when I got my first Speedy Del. Now mind you, if I don't know which wiki articles connect to which Jay Ryan; I can not tell which Jay Ryan I should be writing about. As it turns out, there maybe only two (2) Jay Ryans to write about. I can't tell.

Everytime I went to look up a link to Jay Ryan someone would mark the articles Speedy Del.

Jay Ryan is a generic name. Neither of the Jay Ryans are notable. The baseball player has played on a dozen teams. The musican turned artist is most likely working as a waiter.

In short, all the dead-ended Jay Ryan links should be footnotes, at best. They have done nothing significant. There is no noteworthy news article about them. nothing. The authors that dead-ended Jay Ryan believe he is just that. They write his name, create a link - but it's dead. They can find no significant information, how am I supposed to when I get a Speedy Del just trying to find out who they are.

The history file will reflect my thoughts. I'm utterly frustrated, but I don't blame anyone. As I've said I've been PRODing and AfDing and I see the crap upon crap masqurading(sp?) as articles. --meatclerk 05:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so are you satisfied with where we are now? That is, one disambig page and three stubs? Or do you think the whole mess should be deleted? (including the listing of desired articles so nobody else goes down this rabbit-hole)? There's a structure in place now if you (or anyone else brave enough) wants to expand the stubs but it can all be deleted too if the collective wisdom is that none of the Jay Ryans are sufficiently notable and verifiable. I don't know - I'm just doing my best to facilitate the process :-) Brian 05:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

They should pass Wikipedia:Notability (people). Ardric47 07:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see. The baseball player Ryan qualifies as having played in a fully professional league. It looks to me like Jay Ryan the poster artist passes too. It looks to me like Jay Ryan the actor passes also. So, it looks to me like all three articles are valid and so is the disambig page. Brian 15:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
At issue, by my measure, is not really the Jay Ryans, but the RABBIT HOLE it creates. Classicly in Queueing Theory(which this article avoids) this is called the N-Node problem. In simple terms, you have N number of Nodes, connect all the nodes as efficently as possible. NOTE: As the nodes increase the problem becomes more complex. Efficently gets defined differently depending on what you mean. To stop the RABBIT HOLE a tag might help, but I don't know enough about Queueing Theory to say how much. However, Little's theorem says at least we will be significantly (excuse me - I mean measureably) more efficient. We could call it Ryans' Post... HAHAHA. --meatclerk 17:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]