Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Michael Egan


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 00:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Richard Michael Egan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article lacks reliable sources and appears to fail WP:ENT. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This article should stay on Wikipedia! It is about an actor, why shouldn't he be on the site? Plus, there were plenty of sources on the page, but you keep deleting them!!! If it fails to meet your standards, then here's a crazy idea... Make it meet your standards instead of just completely deleting it! RizzBizzMovieFan (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked for reliable sources but did not find any. Wikipedia, Wikia, and Twitter are not reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete looking at his credits, he just seems like an extra. Doesn't qualify for his own article. Plus the one ref on there is a twitter status that isn't even from a verified twitter. I find no sources about him with a google search, so very much fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources.  No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability.  Sorry, but it's too soon for an article on this person.  When the New York Times or The Hollywood Reporter write an article about him, then he'll qualify. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. It's very clear that there is no significant body of work. -- Whpq (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, Lady Lotus is right. RizzBizzMovieFan, I wish the article's subject the best and hope he meets the GNG someday! Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 03:12, 20 July 2014 (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.