Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Key


 * 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 no consensus. It is lamentable that in 30 days there was no clear consensus of whether to keep or delete the article. However, that seems to be where we are. A "no consensus" close means the status quo is kept, which means the article stays. Killiondude (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Michael Key

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I doubt the subject meets WP:CELEBRITY/WP:AUTHOR, because I don't see a single in-depth coverage cited in this bio. Some of the sources are non even RS. This may possibly also fails WP:GNG for the same reason. Saqib (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 07:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 07:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 07:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The article subject has two Emmy Awards, plus with all the sources with signicant coverage WP:SIGCOV in the article easily passes WP:GNG. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)  — striking sockpuppet !vote per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Multiple Emmy nominations. Scanlan (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * delete unfortunately he doesn't meet the notability guidelines; his coverage is all fleeting and incidental (and not all of it is even in reliable sources) - we should have broader criteria for awards for creative professionals ... it's hard to make the case that a technical Emmy makes the cut BURLEY-XXII 07:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Actually burley-xxii this article subject does meet at least part 3 of the notability rules for creative professionals. I quote The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

In in 1993 and 1999 he won two Emmy Awards for his makeup artistry for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine which is a notable science fiction television series in the mainstream entertainment realm. The Emmys were both for Outstanding Individual Achievement in Makeup for a Series. Plus he received multiple nominations for the same award for at least four other episodes of the same series. So it is not a one episode deal.  
 * So the section of part three The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. is satisfied.


 * Also this part of #3 work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series is satisfied because the awards and nominations for his body of work were for multiple episodes of the notable series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.


 * There are multiple independent periodical articles or reviews about him in the mainstream press and media. For example:, ,, , , , , , , , , , , and .  Lacypaperclip (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)  — striking sockpuppet !vote per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * DELETE per nom; references seem to be incidental mentions of Key Thalium (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. I'm unsure how anyone could not consider the winner of two Emmy awards notable.  -- wooden  superman  13:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment the Emmys were as part of a group win, not an individual award. It doesn't guarantee notability on its own.  It's borderline whether GNG is met. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep – Emmy nominations for his work establish notability in his field for his work.  CookieMonster755 ✉  00:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Leaning toward delete as "his" Emmy nominations/awards are as part of groups of 6-8 others and there's not a lot of coverage about him personally. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome &#124; Democratics Talk 08:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep has an impressive body of work in very notable films, won significant awards even if group awarded, and has rs coverage such as the Columbian Atlantic306 (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete has no one noticed that half the sources are bargain basement sources like this one? The rest just do not cut it.01:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.163.148.25 (talk)
 * I just removed four refs. In three of them, he was not mentioned at all. The fourth was Model Mayhem, the Facebook of the model world, which is self-published. What's left is the Emmy nomination and two articles on him. The coverage is very poor, I would encourage editors to look at the article again. It was puffed up previously.104.163.148.25 (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.