Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Treanor (2nd nomination)


 * 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 to delete at this time. The article subject falls within the letter of WP:NACTOR, which suggests that perhaps the criteria need to be tightened. bd2412 T 16:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Michael Treanor
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Former child star who only has 2 roles both in the same franchise (not including one extra uncredited role). Either delete or what I'm leaning on-a redirect to 3 Ninjas. Wgolf (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment-I forgot to add-yes this was AFD before-BUT it was in 2008 when Wikipedia was MUCH more lenient at the time (it wasn't more strict till around 2012-2014 on these type of rules if I was to guess when) Wgolf (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete There's no demonstration of recent sourcing beyond "where are they now"-type articles, so no significant coverage of the person specifically. (The current article is also an unverified BLP and should probably be gutted if this AfD doesn't result in a delete.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NACTOR #1 with significant roles in multiple films (two is technically multiple, and these films were widely reviewed in major publications, e.g., therefore they are notable films). There are indeed sources - . Hzh (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment-yes the films are notable but that is not why this is up-as I said his only credited roles was in one franchise. Wgolf (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would being in only one franchise a reason for deletion? Do give the guideline that says that. As far as WP::NACTOR goes he qualifies. Hzh (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to 3 Ninjas Appeared in 2 films lifetime, one of which grossed only $400,000 and was shown in 52 theaters (hardly a major film). I don't think that's enough to meet WP:NACTOR and I don't see that the GNG is met. A redirect seems best to me. Not notable as a martial artist.Sandals1 (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Gross for films has got nothing to do with notability, and notability for the films can be determined by reviews in major publication, of which there are many (I have given a few, for example in New York Times and Los Angeles Times. See criteria for film notability WP:NFO. There are still coverage of the films and the actors in them within the last few years, which would demonstrate WP:GNG. Also please read WP:NACTOR #1, if you want to use an argument based on guideline, show how it fails that, and use only guideline that can support what you say. Hzh (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Reviews are from LA Times, local paper in this case, and Variety (trade publication). Hard to call this a notable film. Even if you do, meeting an SNG creates a presumption of notability but not a guarantee--especially when there's a lack of significant independent coverage to meet the GNG. Being mentioned in reviews does not give such coverage nor does a brief mention in what the "3 ninjas" are up to now--"legend has it that he works in the financial services industry in Washington, D.C." When in doubt I default to the GNG. Show me he meets that and I'll happily change my vote to keep.Sandals1 (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that the source wrote a few paragraphs on the person, that you called it "brief mention" suggests that your assessment is somewhat faulty, ditto describing LA Times as a local paper and Variety a trade publication. Kevin Thomas, a nationally known critic, reviewed both films for LA Times . Read WP:NFO before you try to judge what is a notable film. There are many many more reviews for the films by the way, from Washington Post to Time Out London, a bit of research before an !vote would show that. Hzh (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I take it that means you can't show me sources that this meets the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have already given the links, and explained why he meets WP:NACTOR #1, and that the sources meet WP:GNG. I have already have to tell you the applicable guidelines, it is not for me to explain further, whether you accept it or not is entirely up to you. It is your responsibility to understand the notability criteria before you comment, and not to make comments like what the film grossed or that LA Times is a local paper etc. Hzh (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Cited sources are not enough. Requires more. Benleg4000 (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as passes WP:NACTOR with prominent roles in notable productions so needs to be included in the encyclopedia Atlantic306 (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect Technically, I believe you can make a case for his appearing in two notable films (based on WP criteria (multiple reviews), not man in the street views), but the second one is a sequel of the first and would not be notable otherwise. I would say he's only notable for appearing in the 3 Ninjas and all other notability stems from that (WP:BLP1E).  I believe Variety is a trade publication--it's labeled as such in its WP article and its own description--"The most trusted provider of news and information to the entertainment industry."  Getting by on a technicality for a modern actor in the U.S. and failing to meet the GNG means I don't believe he meets the WP criteria for a standalone article (GNG is the standard), but I have no problems with a redirect to the one thing he's known for.  Papaursa (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep While his career in movies was limited, he did star in two popular films and that should pass the WP:NACTOR requirements. Capt. Milokan (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think a $400,000 gross box office qualifies as a popular film (not even in top 200 for 1995), especially when the sequel he didn't appear in grossed $12 million. WP:NACTOR isn't a guarantee, merely a presumption of notability.  I still don't see where WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can't you cite a guideline that says film gross or popularity are the defining criteria per for notability? Read WP:NFILM, and you'd see that what matters is that the films have been taken notice of by the critics, and you'd find that they had been reviewed by major film reviewers. Note also the films are mentioned long after the it was released, therefore satisfying another criterion of WP:NFO. Also if you want to argue that Variety is a trade magazine (it's actually read as a general entertainment magazine by the public, I've bought and read it before outside of US, and I'm not in the industry) there is no restriction against a trade magazine as a RS. It would be helpful to use actual guidelines for discussion rather than some criteria you came up with yourself. Hzh (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was responding to the editor who described the films as "popular"--that usually is based on attendance/box office. The sequel Treanor was in was reviewed only because the original film was a success (notability is not inherited). GNG is still WP's main notability criteria and it's not met, at least in my opinion.  You, of course, are entitled to your opinion. Papaursa (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This sequel is actually the third in the series, so how is this reviewed only because the original one was a success? All films are judged independently notability-wise, if a film gets reviewed by well-known critics (and there also recent reviews ), then it is considered notable, whether it is the second or third in the series is of no relevance, and nothing has been inherited (unless you misunderstand what that means). Hzh (talk) 15:10, 8 May 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.