Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lowry (actor)


 * 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 delete. If it wasn't for the OTRS request, I would close this one as no consensus, but my reading of WP:BIODELETE is that a no consensus in these circumstances should default to delete, a case made even stronger by a majority being in favour of delete. SpinningSpark 15:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Michael Lowry (actor)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of this article has been in communication with OTRS (ref 2015012210014351) and would like his article to be deleted if possible. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The relevant guidelines are apparently WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:BIODELETE, along with WP:NACTOR. Valfontis (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete As someone who has advocated for a strong BLP policy and watched it evolve over time, I think that we need to push the boundary a bit father than the currently written guideline and delete this article. I've read the correspondence from the subject, and seen the history of the article, and considered the type of public figure that he is. The nature of his work means that he can meet the guideline for notability. Getting mentioned in the media is part of his work. But is he truly a public figure? I think having the information about him in other articles can adequately give the world the information about him, without subjecting him to the downside of being a target for malicious attention. In the big scheme of things we really don't have enough information to do anything beyond a long start article (if that.) So, let's make it work for all of us, and move the relevant information to other articles, and delete this stand alone biography of him at his request. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, per FloNight. I was waiting to see how others responded due to this being an OTRS issue. I saw that the article was the subject of some unwanted attention but that alone doesn't seem to be a criterion for deletion as pages can easily be protected. Since the subject barely passes WP:GNG, however, I was thinking "weak delete". FloNight's argument is persuasive so that puts me solidly into the delete camp, with the caveat that the work that gets mentioned at AfD doesn't always get done, so hopefully someone will take care of the merging of info into other articles. Valfontis (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Won't say keep at this point but he appears to clearly pass WP:NACTOR. Haven't read the correspondence from the subject but is there any problems that good protection on a straight forward stub won't address? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (This is me sharing my thoughts, not me relaying commentary from the OTRS ticket) Well, a stub is only a stub so long as someone doesn't come along and add to it, and we don't have a way to make perma-stubs (nor should we, imho). Protection is, of course, a possibility when there's vandalism to a BLP, but the current level of editing traffic the article gets is so low that I feel like it might be overly restrictive to protect it. It could be done, and maybe it even should be done, but doing it would be a bit on the unusual side. Then again, deleting it doesn't exactly leave it open for editing either so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is no policy that really covers this situation. The protection policy makes it clear that protection is intended for short term use in the most minimal way so that people can keep expanding the article to improve it. But there is not really much more to be added and unlikely that there will be unless something drasticly changes so that he gets more media coverage. And very few people are viewing the article so there is a pretty good risk that no one will find BLP violations promptly except the subject of the article. In these cases of pages with extremely low number of page views, and no significant amount of information beyond what could go in other articles means we have the person who is the subject of the article as the person who truly has the most interest in it. In these situations I think it is fair to let them have a strong voice in whether we keep the article on site. When a search is done of their name, this article will be the first hit. Someone like him whose regular job put him in the media just barely enough to pass our notabity guideline because it was public facing work, but really is no different than the average person who shows up for his job. I think his work history can be adequately covered in the articles about his work. The reason that we take each article one at a time and discuss it is to figure each one out based on the particular details of the situation. So that is the reason that I feel comfortable voting delete on this one even though it technically passes WP:NACTOR. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. He satisfies NACTOR with significant roles in three major soaps. If he was only marginal, then maybe a deletion would be acceptable, but that's simply not the case here. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep As somebody who can't read the OTRS ticket, I have to side with Clarityfiend here. He's not just some random bit player who plays uncredited roles.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 20:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Clarityfiend and Taylor Trescot, the important part of "rules" that you all are overlooking is in the general guideline discussing the reason that we have notability guidelines. The topic specific guidelines are intended to be a topic specific shortcut for considering when someone is likely to have enough information in reliable sources to have a comprehensive standalone article if someone takes the time to find the material.
 * "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.)"


 * Despite his decades of working as an actor, he doesn't have a large amount of content about him as an individual available for us to write about him. You could likely cobble together information about the work history of a large percentage of the people in the world if you know their name and occupation, and that really all we have on him. And the number of page views is quite small and people are more likely to see the information about him if it is included in articles about his past work on the shows. Considering his request for it to be deleted, I went back to the basics of why we have the guideline, and decided that it makes sense to look beyond the simplistic criteria for WP:NACTOR. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Soap Opera Digest interviewed him in 1997 and 2009. That shows a lot of staying power to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing that he was good at his work and able to get good jobs. This is true of many people in many occupations. That his was a public facing job means that it gets mentions in the media. I'm suggesting that in this case, him being able to get a job that is certain to generate media about his work, does not translate into us having enough good quality information about him to create a stand alone article. It is not about whether he is deserving of an article, its about whether there is enough data in reliable sources about him to create a stand alone article. This is a border line case. And with his stated preference, and us being able to present the information adequately elsewhere, I don't see a reason to keep this biography of a living person on site and have it open to violations of the BLP in a way that is harmful to him. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete Since IMO the subject does not meet WP:NACTOR, deletion under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is appropriate.  Mini  apolis  17:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, absolutely. I'm actually surprised there's this much discussion of the issue. This isn't Barack Obama asking for his article to be deleted; it's a marginally notable person who really only has media coverage because his job involves being covered in the media. A glance at the article history suggests problems. Keeping the article because an essentially arbitrary benchmark is met is instruction-creepy, and deleting it as requested would be compassionate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Inability to see to the "ticket" isn't helping any; what proof do we have it's not a hoax or an attack by an imposter? Pax 07:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't see it either, and I'm an OTRS agent. Not sure which queue it's in. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. If he were a decade-retired from some long-forgotten minor project, or an ex-child actor, deletion would be a done-deal. But he's still active with four acting projects alone in the last two years, including three new TV series, and formerly had an important role (possessing its own article in one of the biggest soaps of all time, One Life to Live. He is thereby a smashing success at meeting WP:NACTOR's "has had significant roles in multiple notable...television shows". It's very hard for me to see how he's not notable. Pax 07:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is appropriate here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2015 (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.