Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael P. Moran


 * 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. Commenting editors are almost evenly divided on how to interpret and apply the relevant guidelines in this case, and the relist did not produce any new participants to break the deadlock. I have no obvious reason to discount either side, and I doubt another relist would help much, so I'm closing this no consensus. RL0919 (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Michael P. Moran

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:NACTOR notability guidelines as he has not played any significant roles in film or television. Rusf10 (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Neutral I found two sources about his death: 2004 Variety obit and a small verification that an obituary exists from the Richmond Times-Dispatch. That's all my limited WP:BEFORE gives me. ミラP 23:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Switching to Delete. The subject seems to only have had marginal roles. ミラP 00:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Switching to Weak keep per RebeccaGreen. ミラP 16:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - because passes WP:NACTOR. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Passing NACTOR is not a matter of just having had roles — every actor has always had roles, because having roles is the job description, so if simply listing roles was all you had to do to get an actor over NACTOR then there would never be any such thing as a non-notable actor anymore. Rather, getting an actor over the notability bar is a matter of reliably sourcing that he has been the subject of media coverage about his having had roles. And while the Variety obit is a start, it's a short blurb so it doesn't get him all the way to the finish line all by itself -- and legacy.com just aggregates the paid inclusion classified obits that every dead person who exists gets the moment their family places one, so that one is not a notability-building source at all. Moran requires more sources than this before he's notable enough, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more than just an obituary. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete the sourcing is not enough to pass the general notability guidelines. I am not convinced either source is reliable, one is absolutely not (IMDb) and the other one does not look to be. Even if it was, GNG requires multiple, reliable secondary sources, which we clearly do not have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I have found and added some more sources, including some reviews of off-Broadway stage performances where he is described as "The galvanizing force"; "comes close to stealing the show"; "the cast is strong, particularly Michael P. Moran". As for film and TV - although he never had starring roles on screen, he is listed in IMDB's "first billed" cast for 8 titles: 6th in The Big Heist and A Perfect Murder, 8th in Harvest, 9th in Squeeze Play, 10th in Physical Evidence, 12th in The Turning, 13th in Scarface, and one of 12 in The Eden Myth. So I would say that he does meet WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." NACTOR does not require starring roles, but significant roles, in multiple notable productions - and he had that. (NACTOR does not actually require "that he has been the subject of media coverage about his having had roles" - WP:AUTHOR specifically states "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work ... or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", but NACTOR does not.) I will add more sources as I find them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * NACTOR most certainly does require sources — if simply listing roles was all it took to exempt an actor from having to have any sources, then no actor would ever actually have to show any sources at all. Every actor has always had roles, so our notability standard for actors would automatically have no meaning at all if simply listing roles gave them an automatic free pass over NACTOR #1. Rather, outside sources have to tell us that any given role was "major" enough to count toward getting the actor over #1 — and they have to do that by writing and publishing content that is specifically about the actor, and not just by verifying his existence in a cast list. So yes, adding new sources helps, but it's not true that actors don't require sources to pass NACTOR. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That is your interpretation - it's not what NACTOR actually says. And it doesn't use the word "major", it says "significant". RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's not just my interpretation. It's a simple, incontrovertible fact that every actor who exists at all can always list roles — having roles is the job description — so if all an actor had to do to pass NACTOR #1 was list their roles, and there were no requirement to actually show any sources to support the significance of the roles, then every actor who exists would be guaranteed a Wikipedia article and no actor could ever be deleted as non-notable anymore. Which is precisely why AFD very routinely deletes articles about actors who can't show actual sources to support their passage of NACTOR. And "major" vs. "significant" is what's called a distinction without a difference — the words are virtually synonymous, and don't mean different enough things to turn "but you said 'major' while NACTOR says 'significant'" into a mic drop. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * How? I said in the nomination that it does not. What significant roles has this actor had?--Rusf10 (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This is close to a no consensus close but I'll give it another week.
 * Delete. The notability calls for significant roles. "Security guard #2", "Hotdog vendor", "Morgue attendant", are barely one step over being an extra on set. Ifnord (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment To answer the questions of those who say he has had no significant roles: 1. He has had significant roles on stage, as I noted above. 2. The productions that I named above were: The Big Heist, in which he played Louis the Whale; A Perfect Murder, in which he played Bobby Fain; Harvest, in which he played Henry Upton; Squeeze Play!, in which he played Bozo; Physical Evidence in which he played Tony Reugger; The Turning, in which he played Jim McCutcheon; and Scarface, in which he played Nick The Pig. The fact that he has also played "Flea Market Chicken Seller", "Party Guest", "Cop #9", etc, does not mean that he has never played significant roles. And I do not agree either that there is no difference in meaning between 'major' and 'significant'. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2019 (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.