Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lohan (3rd 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 keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 21:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lohan

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

This article appears to me to be in violation of WP:N. The majority of sources are of doubtful reliability and are concerned chiefly with the subject's eldest daughter. There appears to be no notability aside from his marriage and children (see WP:NOTINHERITED, plus a criminal record. Vox Humana 8' 10:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do agree with you on several points (although I'll still do the research), but be careful about how you phrase the AfD justification. It kind of comes across as a little angry, which could seem like you're doing it because you dislike the Lohans. Silly, I know, but you want to avoid people having a knee-jerk reaction to the AfD because you're being a little snarky. I've seen AfDs closed for less, so just be a little careful how you phrase things. I do agree that the Lohans seem to have most of their notability come out of articles talking about Lindsay's antics, but there is some slight argument for some notability for Ali and Dina Lohan because of their reality show. I wish there was an easy way to combine all of the non-Lindsay Lohan family members into one article about the family as a whole, but I'm not sure of exactly how to do that. I do want to caution that finding sources that never mention Linday will probably be incredibly hard, if not impossible to find. This doesn't mean that they can't have notability outside of Lindsay or that a source that mentions Lindsay in part or passing but puts a predominant focus on the other Lohan(s) couldn't show notability for them.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - post edited in less intemperate manner =) --Vox Humana 8' 11:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, no biggie. I got the general gist of it, but I don't want this to be closed early. There's definitely a good argument against notability for the family. For example, most of Ali Lohan's notability seems to stem from Lindsay or from the reality show she starred in, so she might be good as a redirect to the reality show if nothing else can be found.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge The spirit of WP:N say that being related to a notable person doesn't make you notable. This particular Lohan is notable for being the father of a fameous person, and also all the other tabloid drama he brought on himself. It's sort of like Billy Carter. Being the sibiling of a President doesn't make you notable, until your own actions make you part of populat culture. Although, it may be better to 'merge this article. Roodog2k (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - quite famous and notable, even notorious. COI alert: we may be distant cousins by marriage. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Simply and clearly passes WP:GNG. He has been often discussed editorially, over sustained period. I don't care who he is, fathered, does or says.--Nixie9 (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As right now. Meets notability requirements. ApprenticeFan ^work 08:00, 19 December 2012 (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.