Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lohan II
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was delete mentioning him on Lindsay Lohan can, of course, be discussed on that talkpage. --W.marsh 01:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Michael Lohan II
Notability: By all accounts, he is intentionally staying out of show business following his lone role in The Parent Trap RadioKirk talk to me 19:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- That's why he is listed as that having his only film role! But he is an actor and was in a movie. People have been asking about him over at IMDb on Lindsay's discussion boards, so I think a small article about him that is linked to Lindsay's page is nice. It also has a link to his IMDb page. Stephe1987 19:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Apologies, but I agree with Average Earthman, who echoes my reasons for the AfD. I'm going to read over Lindsay Lohan and see if a short line can be worked into the text there, but he doesn't merit an article, IMHO. (I have not put up an AfD for Aliana Lohan—though someone else might—because she has received press of her intentions to follow her sister into the biz. Whether she deserves an article now is debatable, but she almost certainly will in the very near future.) RadioKirk talk to me 20:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Edit: Brief adds to sibling info now at Lindsay Lohan. RadioKirk talk to me 21:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete One role in a notable film, but it's an unnamed role and probably not very important to the movie. Unless he's done other things of note besides playing "lost boy at camp", I'd say delete, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Lindsay Lohan after cleaning up the text. One sentence to note his existence and appearance as a bit-part player in one film will be enough to cover it. (aeropagitica) 20:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Done—sort of. The Parent Trap role is his only notability, and there should be nothing more than a very short "here's where you may have heard of him" in his sister's article. RadioKirk talk to me 21:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- The reason why I added his article in the first place is because I get asked questions about him all the time at IMDb. And when I tried to add information about him to Lindsay's page, the editors deleted it because it "wasn't relevant". They told me I was free to make my own page about him. And then I made a page for him and people are allowed to petition for deletion? That makes no sense to me. Either let Mike's info be put into Lindsay's article or let Michael have his own article. But not having any information on him at all makes no sense because people ask about him all the time at IMDb Message Boards, and they come here looking for information and can't find anything. So what does everyone suggest should be done? Keep in mind that Michael Lohan has his own page at IMDb and is going to need a link to that page if people decide to merge with Lindsay Lohan. Stephe1987 20:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- The Lindsay Lohan article already says Like most celebrities, Lohan and her family have endured public scrutiny of their private lives. It was revealed in 2004 that Michael Lohan had spent much of Lindsay's preteen years in prison for securities fraud. In 2005, he was sent back to prison for "aggravated unlicensed driving" and attempted assault. It seems relatively simple to say that also had a minor role in Parent Trap, and then blank his article as a redirect page. I think the editors on the LL article on wrong on this point. However, maybe some people attract so much attention that their family need articles even if it bends WP:BIO. Tentative merge and redirect but I remain open to persuasion either way. Thatcher131 20:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Uh - I rather suspect the Michael Lohan in prison was Michael Lohan I, not Michael Lohan II, who appears to be her younger brother. Who has had one uncredited role in one film, and therefore doesn't need an article, or even an IMDB link (if someone wants to find him on IMDB - try searching IMDB) Average Earthman 20:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- You are correct re the two Michaels. RadioKirk talk to me 20:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- I thought that we should merge the articles, too. But Wikipedia didn't seem to like it when I added in the stuff about Michael Jr.-- they told me to make a page for him and deleted all the stuff I wrote without notice or asking me about it. It seems rude that they just delete your stuff without telling you first. Or they leave a note in your discussion telling you what they did without asking first why you did it. And you can only write like two sentences in your edit summary, so there is no way to explain what's going on *rolls eyes*! The two Michaels, like you said, were mixed up, but you are wrong about Michael not being credited for the Parent Trap. He is credited for the Parent Trap. The uncredited roles were from the late 1990's to early 2000's when he and his little brother and sister would go around with their mom and be uncredited extras in Lindsay's films, remember? Stephe1987 22:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've added brief detail on all three siblings to Lindsay Lohan; anything more than that doesn't belong in that article and, unless the younger Michael gets back into show business (unlikely at this point), he does not merit his own page—IMHO. RadioKirk talk to me 22:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- I added a link to Michael's IMDb page from his name and the birth years of the Lohan siblings (so people who come on here know how old they are because people are always asking how old they are), as well as the fact that they have uncredited roles as extras in the films sometimes-- two sentences! If the editors don't revert again, I (the person who wrote the article) also agree that this article should be deleted. I don't know why they didn't just let me add in a little bit of information on him in the first place-- it would have saved us all a lot of trouble. Oh well. Stephe1987
- I'm sorry but, as I explained on your talk page, that can't stay. An external link to someone other than the article's subject is a no-no. Also, you've added information that is absolutely unencyclopedic—her parents' birthdates could be considered irrelevant to Lindsay's article, never mind her siblings'. Their uncredited cameos in her films are not relevant, either. Any one of the changes you made would be sufficient for WP:FA status to be revoked due to irrelevance to the subject. With all possible respect to Michael, specifically, one film appearance eight years ago is insufficient notability for an encyclopedia, and barely enough for the briefest of all possible references in Lindsay's article. Among the things Wikipedia is not, it is not a complete list of everything. Meantime, if people ask about her brother, answer them within the group. RadioKirk talk to me 00:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- I see no other solution than to put the information and link back in. There is less that one sentence about each of the siblings-- not nearly enough to say that there is too much information on someone other than Lindsay Lohan. In fact, all the information was in the same sentence! The fact that they travel with her and their mother, who is Lindsay's agent, is also VERY relevant because they have uncredited roles in almost all of her movies (also one sentence). Also, the reason why I put the link to Michael's IMDb page (if you read his talk/deletion article) is because people want to delete his page, so I think it's best to just link his page to the IMDb article about him if he doesn't get his own page. Please tell me what you think makes the most sense to do: either give the Lohan kids each their own page (which seems silly because there is only part of a sentence about each of them), or add in their birth years to say how old they are, (and a lot of articles have birth years for siblings, so it's not too much info or irrelevant) and say they're extras in her movies (which they are). Also, what about the link to Michael's IMDb page-- why not just link it to his name? Perhaps we should put a number by it and have the link as an external link? User_talk:Stephe1987
- This is not nearly as simple as you are making it seem. First, a lot of articles may indeed have peripheral information about siblings and the like; you will find that is not the case in featured articles (seriously, and please, go read some). Indeed, articles that do have such listings should be cleaned up to remove most (if not all) of them; bad habits in articles are not excuses to spread them to other articles. The external link for Michael absolutely cannot go back; as for her siblings' uncredited exploits in her films, I would be more than happy to file a Request for comment; however, since we once again are talking about the possible delisting of a Featured article due to the relevance (or lack thereof) of the information, I wouldn't hold up hope that your suggestions will survive. Do you wish me to request comment from admins and other users? RadioKirk talk to me 00:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- I see no other solution than to put the information and link back in. There is less that one sentence about each of the siblings-- not nearly enough to say that there is too much information on someone other than Lindsay Lohan. In fact, all the information was in the same sentence! The fact that they travel with her and their mother, who is Lindsay's agent, is also VERY relevant because they have uncredited roles in almost all of her movies (also one sentence). Also, the reason why I put the link to Michael's IMDb page (if you read his talk/deletion article) is because people want to delete his page, so I think it's best to just link his page to the IMDb article about him if he doesn't get his own page. Please tell me what you think makes the most sense to do: either give the Lohan kids each their own page (which seems silly because there is only part of a sentence about each of them), or add in their birth years to say how old they are, (and a lot of articles have birth years for siblings, so it's not too much info or irrelevant) and say they're extras in her movies (which they are). Also, what about the link to Michael's IMDb page-- why not just link it to his name? Perhaps we should put a number by it and have the link as an external link? User_talk:Stephe1987
- I'm sorry but, as I explained on your talk page, that can't stay. An external link to someone other than the article's subject is a no-no. Also, you've added information that is absolutely unencyclopedic—her parents' birthdates could be considered irrelevant to Lindsay's article, never mind her siblings'. Their uncredited cameos in her films are not relevant, either. Any one of the changes you made would be sufficient for WP:FA status to be revoked due to irrelevance to the subject. With all possible respect to Michael, specifically, one film appearance eight years ago is insufficient notability for an encyclopedia, and barely enough for the briefest of all possible references in Lindsay's article. Among the things Wikipedia is not, it is not a complete list of everything. Meantime, if people ask about her brother, answer them within the group. RadioKirk talk to me 00:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- I added a link to Michael's IMDb page from his name and the birth years of the Lohan siblings (so people who come on here know how old they are because people are always asking how old they are), as well as the fact that they have uncredited roles as extras in the films sometimes-- two sentences! If the editors don't revert again, I (the person who wrote the article) also agree that this article should be deleted. I don't know why they didn't just let me add in a little bit of information on him in the first place-- it would have saved us all a lot of trouble. Oh well. Stephe1987
- I've added brief detail on all three siblings to Lindsay Lohan; anything more than that doesn't belong in that article and, unless the younger Michael gets back into show business (unlikely at this point), he does not merit his own page—IMHO. RadioKirk talk to me 22:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- I thought that we should merge the articles, too. But Wikipedia didn't seem to like it when I added in the stuff about Michael Jr.-- they told me to make a page for him and deleted all the stuff I wrote without notice or asking me about it. It seems rude that they just delete your stuff without telling you first. Or they leave a note in your discussion telling you what they did without asking first why you did it. And you can only write like two sentences in your edit summary, so there is no way to explain what's going on *rolls eyes*! The two Michaels, like you said, were mixed up, but you are wrong about Michael not being credited for the Parent Trap. He is credited for the Parent Trap. The uncredited roles were from the late 1990's to early 2000's when he and his little brother and sister would go around with their mom and be uncredited extras in Lindsay's films, remember? Stephe1987 22:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- You are correct re the two Michaels. RadioKirk talk to me 20:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Uh - I rather suspect the Michael Lohan in prison was Michael Lohan I, not Michael Lohan II, who appears to be her younger brother. Who has had one uncredited role in one film, and therefore doesn't need an article, or even an IMDB link (if someone wants to find him on IMDB - try searching IMDB) Average Earthman 20:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- The Lindsay Lohan article already says Like most celebrities, Lohan and her family have endured public scrutiny of their private lives. It was revealed in 2004 that Michael Lohan had spent much of Lindsay's preteen years in prison for securities fraud. In 2005, he was sent back to prison for "aggravated unlicensed driving" and attempted assault. It seems relatively simple to say that also had a minor role in Parent Trap, and then blank his article as a redirect page. I think the editors on the LL article on wrong on this point. However, maybe some people attract so much attention that their family need articles even if it bends WP:BIO. Tentative merge and redirect but I remain open to persuasion either way. Thatcher131 20:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to his sis. I'm sorry, but "Lost Boy at Camp" isn't notable enough for a mention. And being dragged hither, thither, and yon for his sister's career, if anything, seems to be a rather painful implication of his non-notability. JDoorjam Talk 00:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- very weak delete. if his position in the movie were more notable, this page wouldn't be an issue. as it is it seems non notable. it shouldnt be necessary to merge to Lindsay Lohan at all since none of the information on the page qualifies for notability standards.
- Delete unless it's appropriate to have an article for every extra in every movie. oh wait, thats what IMDB is for. Moe Aboulkheir 04:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Dude, why don't you all just delete it already?! "Discussing it" like this is ridiculous and a waste of time. Stephe1987 23:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Is the process inequitable? I always thought deletions without process was worse... RadioKirk talk to me 23:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it depends on how it is being done. Admins deleting it without first talking to the person who wrote it is bad; having a group of people come on and discuss it is a waste of time. Stephe1987 00:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Apologies, you've lost me. What's the third option? RadioKirk talk to me 00:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, maybe speed it up a bit. Having a whole page with a bunch of people posting pretty much the same thing over and over again gets a bit tiring. Why not just let the person who created the article delete it if there is a consensus to doso? How many weeks will this take? How many people will come on here and post the same thing over and over again? I think that the creator should be able to delete it if people can convince him/her that the article is not needed. If the creator cannot be convinced, then continue the discussions and let the admins deal with it. Stephe1987 02:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, got it, thanks. I have no argument with that. Edit: Actually, if memory serves, anyone can "blank" a page but only an admin can delete it. RadioKirk talk to me 03:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Nooooo! Page-blanking is prohibited. Herostratus 16:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, got it, thanks. I have no argument with that. Edit: Actually, if memory serves, anyone can "blank" a page but only an admin can delete it. RadioKirk talk to me 03:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, maybe speed it up a bit. Having a whole page with a bunch of people posting pretty much the same thing over and over again gets a bit tiring. Why not just let the person who created the article delete it if there is a consensus to doso? How many weeks will this take? How many people will come on here and post the same thing over and over again? I think that the creator should be able to delete it if people can convince him/her that the article is not needed. If the creator cannot be convinced, then continue the discussions and let the admins deal with it. Stephe1987 02:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Apologies, you've lost me. What's the third option? RadioKirk talk to me 00:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it depends on how it is being done. Admins deleting it without first talking to the person who wrote it is bad; having a group of people come on and discuss it is a waste of time. Stephe1987 00:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Extremely non-notable. Wikipedia is not IMDB. Herostratus 16:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per everyone who voted Delete JackO'Lantern 20:36, 18 March 2006 (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.
