Talk:Lukas Gage

Speedy Deletion
This is the 3rd time I have had to nominate of deletion. User:Bbb23 keeps deleting the tag. They seem to think he deserves an article (one with very few words) just because of an IMDB page.Makro (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop edit warring to reinstate a declined speedy deletion request, as I would really not like to see you blocked over it. Also, declining the request does not mean that Bbb23 "think he deserves an article", it's just that he does not believe the article satisfies the strict criteria for speedy deletion. You need to seek a different route, and I would suggest WP:AFD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have done the right way following Wiki protocol. Just because Bbb23 is an admin he thinks he can get away with lack lustre article like this. It contains little to no information and doesn't provide any evidence of notability. It deserves removal by A7.Makro (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have explained to you the correct procedure to follow once a speedy deletion request has been declined (here, and in more detail on your talk page), and I will not tell you again. Also please note that evidence of notability is not required to overcome A7, just a credible claim of importance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User Bbb23 is clearly abusing their admin rights to overturn my tag. The article is clearly unfit for Wiki. There is no evidence of notability.Makro (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As I have already explained, anyone can decline a speedy deletion request, not just admins. It cannot be abuse of admin rights if no admin rights have been used. Anyway, as you appear determined to refuse to listen, I shall not waste any further effort trying to help you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Makro, you need to take this to WP:PROD or WP:AFD as you were advised to do originally. The tag was removed. Anyone can do that, as you have already been informed. Continuing to badger people when you apparently don't understand that instead of "following Wiki protocol" (which is AfD/PROD) is beginning to get disruptive, and you can and should consider this a warning to that effect. I'm not an admin, and I have no rights to abuse. So take or leave that advise as you will.  G M G  talk  19:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I will follow Wiki AFD then as advised by an admin. Makro (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Interview that turned viral
I don't see a reason not to include the information about his interview going viral. Similar, although punctual, information about other public figures has been included in their respective pages. Here are a few examples:


 * From George Clooney's page: "in May 2015, Clooney told the BBC that the Syrian conflict was too complicated politically to get involved in and he wanted to focus on helping the refugees". As you can see, that was a very punctual thing he did and that got enough media attention.
 * From Margaret Thatcher's page: "In 1948 she applied for a job at Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), but was rejected after the personnel department assessed her as headstrong, obstinate and dangerously self-opinionated." Again, a very punctual thing.
 * From Sandra Bullock's page: "In September 2013, Bullock joined other Hollywood legends at the TCL Chinese Theatre on Hollywood Boulevard in making imprints of her hands and feet in cement of the theater's forecourt". Again, something punctual.

It is important to note that we're not including information about one detail about his life as Primefac stated. It's not that he said that he likes black tea in an interview and I decided to include that. It's a event that got a considerate amount of attention by the media. -- Nasch &#124; talk  10:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting list, and thank you for bringing this to the talk page. Some thoughts on your points: the first is about a military conflict (highly political/visible, though I could see that information being removed as somewhat irrelevant), the second is reasonable because those qualities are what she was known for as PM, and the third holds great cultural significance in the film industry. Meanwhile, having your apartment called a piece of crap... that's just unfortunate. There's no significance to it, other than the fact that he tweeted it and the media picked up on it. Taylor Swift could get bad service at a restaurant and the media would likely pick up on it, but we wouldn't include a scathing review of the restaurant in her article. It's not about "punctuality" (i.e. we are NOTNEWS), it's about what people are known for and the things that impact their lives and the lives of others. Primefac (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If Taylor Swift got bad service in a restaurant it wouldn't be portrayed in the international media like this incident has been. To provide an example, Gage's interview has been broadly taken to reliable media sources all over the world: here are some examples. Your definition of what significance is seems to have a largely subjective weight too: why is Bullock's imprint relevant if virtually no-one knows about that one theatre in China besides within a small subset of the population represented in the acting industry? why not include every situation in which Thatcher demonstrated she was obstinate and headstrong throughout her youth?. We could justify, using the very same arguments you used, that no information about partners or sexual orientation should be included in any page if it "doesn't impact the live of others". We could spend years discussing whether we think the event was significant or not, or we could determine its significance by measuring a much more objective variable as its outreach is.-- Nasch &#124; talk  12:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair point regarding Thatcher (and maybe we should remove that line from the article), but we have an entire article about folks who get their handprints (so I'd argue lots of people know about it); it's comparable to a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. This is the issue with using OTHERSTUFF-type arguments; most of them have extenuating circumstances and/or actually shouldn't be there; I see it a lot for declined drafts, when they say "well this other (terrible) article exists", to which my reply is that we should delete the other article then. We're at an impasse between the two of us, clearly, so I would suggest letting someone else comment here and give their opinions; if no one does in a day or two I'd suggest getting a third opinion. Primefac (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misinterpreting my argument. I did not bring up those examples as a sole reference for similar information being stated in other articles (OTHERSTUFF is there so that people who quote low-quality articles as comparative examples can't build an argument, which was not my case), but because they complement my argument that information that might be perceived as less notable/having less outreach compared to the one I included is actually included in other articles. From the very OTHERSTUFF page you quoted, you can read "while these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this.". I only include them as a support of my argument of NOTABILITY, which the info clearly respects. I agree with you and I'd say we should both refrain from editing the article in any way until a third intervenes.  Nasch &#124; talk  19:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)