Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lohan (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. A close divide between keep and merge/redirect. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lohan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP that does not appear notable outside of his relationship to Lindsay Lohan. I'm not seeing anything demonstrating that he has ever done anything important other than producing a child who later became famous, so this is largely per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BIO The Wordsmith^Communicate 22:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hilary Duff or whatever --Scott Mac 22:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable except for relationship to famous person.- Wolfkeeper 00:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an outstanding AFD that AFAIK has not been overturned that calls for this to be a REDIRECT anyway.- Wolfkeeper 00:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as obvious solution. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 01:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Nominator's assessment of Michael Lohan's importance is probably correct, but it's notability that's the deciding factor, not importance. Michael Lohan has been in the news on and off for the last 5 years, so there may be some long-term notability here.--Pink Bull 02:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Most biographies on wikipedia are of people who i subjectively believe to have done nothing of importance. We have reams of articles on those who are famous for being famous. And whether such people are now so numerous to be a plague I cannot say, but the concept is not a new one. Here, based on significant coverage in reliable sources, the subject is extremely notable. See also, e.g., a less covered figure, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Gastineau.--Milowent (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It needs to be cleaned up, but this man is famous and in the news alot so keep the article.

Merge and redirect per Wolfkeeper and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lohan. I see no reason why the first consensus shouldn't be upheld. Pinkadelica ^♣ 02:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Lindsay Lohan per WP:NOTINHERITED. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search [1] minus the name of his daughter, still gives results.

Michael Lohan deal may drop girlfriend's charges

Newsday - Feb 1, 2010

The ongoing spat between celebrity dad Michael Lohan and his exgirlfriend took another twist Monday when Lohan agreed to a deal that may lead to harassment

He is a celebrity dad. And the regular Google news search shows over 6000 results, the news media letting him comment on anything involving his daughter, or mentioning anything that just involves him on his own, he famous now for his own actions. Dream Focus 10:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perhaps more notorious than notable, but still has significant coverage specifically of him. His coverage has in my opinion increased over the last 4+ years. Jminthorne (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The man is very notable and very famous. He's a television personality and even has an acting career. How is that not notable? Travismullins1996 (talk) 07:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Lindsay Lohan - thesubject simply being related to someone who is notable does not make them notable. Notability is not inherited. Nothing in the article asserts or provides evidence of the subject having a claim to notability under any of the relevant notability criteria. --Pump me up 14:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lindsay Lohan. Article is a synthesis of a few trivial facts, and a ton of information about his daughter. Arskwad (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Michael Lohan's reasons for being famous are specious, but he's mentioned in the news enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO, unfortunately. tedder (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The only citations in this article that are not primarily about Lindsey Lohan are an IMDB page and a blog post. NYCRuss ☎ 22:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lindsey Lohan per comment above and the first AfD. SnottyWong talk 22:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question? This afd was initiated almost a month ago. Why hasn't it been closed yet?--Pink Bull 23:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears that this AfD has never been properly transcluded in the first place, and for some reason was not picked up by DumbBOT (talk · contribs). Tim Song (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sad to say, he is famous enough to warrant an article. The Pebble Dare (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, no matter what the reason is. He's notable under the GNG, whether we like it or not. Buddy431 (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - poorly referenced, highly negative article about a non-notable living person. The only sources for this article are highly unreliable gossip blogs and the like. There is no evidence of notability here, and this article should be deleted as soon as possible because at the moment it's flatly violating WP:BLP policy. Articles like this do not belong on Wikipedia, and keeping them here both damages us and their subjects. Robofish (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see Buddy's !vote above yours? Also this article is quite popular--believe it not it got over 22,000 views in April, because like it or not, the guy is rather famous.--Milowent (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a page is popular or that people are interested in it does not mean the subject is suitable for Wikipedia. In this case, I am not convinced that the subject passes our notability guidelines. The vast majority of the sources are from unreliable sources; if this was cut down so only the information from reliable sources was kept, it would only be a stub anyway. Robofish (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its needs improvement no doubt. But there are many available reliable sources, here's just a few of literally hundreds: [2] (AP), [3] (CBS News), [4] (MSNBC), [5] (ABC News), [6] (NY Newsday).--Milowent (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I accept that significant coverage in reliable sources exist, but I'm still not supporting a keep here. This is the kind of article I think, 'OK, the news media show terrible news judgement and have no respect for people's privacy, but that doesn't mean we should follow them'. I feel we should hold ourselves to higher standards than they do. If it was up to me, I'd invoke WP:Ignore all rules and delete this article outright; but it isn't, so I'll conform with the results of this AFD. If it ends as a keep, I'll do what I can to improve the article and make it less of a BLP nightmare. Robofish (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Famous for being famous, and as Milowent notes, there are plenty of sources out there. Disclosure: I may be distantly related to the subject. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I couldn't help but notice that nobody is discussing whether or not he meets WP:ENT. There are 3 roles mentioned on his filmography. Two of them don't have articles but that doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't notable, it just might be that nobody has written articles about them yet. The movie Horrorween hasn't been released yet. Are his roles in these "significant"? The "Michael Lohan Reality Project" was also mentioned but as far as I can determine, this is just a hacked together Youtube video coupled with a bunch of rumors. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's because the general notability guideline makes a stronger argument for notability. --Pink Bull 20:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.