Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Michael Lacey (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 delete. Evidence has been provided that Mr. Lacey did not win an Emmy; therefore, non-notable.. - Philippe 19:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Michael Lacey

Aaron Michael Lacey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Previous nom closed with no consensus. "Keep" decision merely procedural, not an endorsement of the article. Non-notable actor. Roles as an extra are not notable. Uncredited extra even less so. Sources provided in the article and in the edit history virtually all self-published or user-submission based sites. DarkAudit (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. He is not actually an actor--he's an extra who has also engaged in some manual labor around movie sets. He does not satisfy WP:BIO. Go ahead and search the entire historical archive of Google News for him and you will come up with precisely ZERO HITS: [1]. If he were in fact any sort of notable actor, there would have been at least one news article about him since the beginning of creation, and there hasn't been even one single utterance about him in print. Most of the "sources" used to buttress this article are indeed self-generated, and don't be fooled, because that includes IMDB, to which subjects can contribute their own resumes. In fact, the earlier version of this article, before I revised it down to a stub, was nothing more than a WP:COPYVIO from IMDB. Additionally, there has been heavy WP:COI and WP:AUTO here, both in the writing of the article and in the previous AfD. The prior discussion was also tainted by behavior that looked very much like WP:SOCK, and if we see that again, a checkuser will be the way to proceed. Finally, I have actually seen him (only because I was looking for him in the corner of the set) in his latest and greatest role, in John Adams (miniseries), in a scene that lasts about two minutes in the U.S. Senate--he is, as always, an extra, just sitting there for a few micro-moments without a line to utter. This article, in its various versions, has never been anything but self-promotion to the extreme, and the previous AfD contained only one keep vote--a suspicious one at that--so I was very surprised that it survived with No Consensus. Let's get rid of it now and salt it if it's recreated. Qworty (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Qworty you sound like you know this actor? Which ep did you see him on? When you say, as always an extra, have you seen him in other things as well? When you say manual labor around movie sets, have you actually met and worked with him? Let me know I would love to meet him sometime.AMLFILMS (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete - while I agree that this article's topic isn't notable enough for an article, re-nominating it less than 24 hours after the "no consensus" closure seems inappropriate. If we again fail to reach a consensus, will it just be nominated over and over? Or more precisely, shouldn't the previous AfD have been put to Deletion Review in order to check the closing admin's verdict of "no consensus"? Huon (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I disagree with that position. I would agree with you if the previous result had been Keep. But the previous result was not Keep. The previous result was No Consensus. Wikipedia is all about reaching consensus. There's no point in a no-consensus article continuing to take up space. Let's reach consensus, as editors are always supposed to do, and resolve this issue now. Qworty (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - shouldn't this really have been submitted to Deletion Review? -- Whpq (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Deletion review is for "appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion." This article doesn't fall under that rubric. It wasn't deleted and it was never determined to be a Keep. It was merely No Consensus. I think we should reach a real consensus now and vote to delete it, though if an admin sees this and wants to Speedy it, I'll certainly be satisfied. Qworty (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply - from WP:DRV, "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly", which I interpret to apply to no-concensus decisions as well. And a SPEEDY wouldn't apply here because it has been through AFD before, and at least at one point, there was an assertion of notability in winning a regional emmy. Note also the info the closing admin left at user talk:Polly -- Whpq (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly respect your position, though I'd hate for this thing to continue to exist due to any kind of wikilawyered technicalities (NOT that I'm accusing you or anyone else at this point of wikilawyering in the article's behalf). Thank you for posting the link to the closing admin's comments on another editor's talk page. Frankly, I don't think the final outcome should come down to him. He's had his say, and now I would prefer to see consensus prevail. Qworty (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete: Fails WP:BIO by a country mile, and I'm quite staggered at both the notion that it's taking a second AfD to bounce this article and that, with 7-3 in favor of Delete and two of the Keep votes coming from SPAs, that this was closed as a No Consensus. I would be extremely interested to have the previous closing admin explain why he took a baldfaced, unsourced, unproven assertion of notability from one of the SPAs and used that as a justification to close No Consensus without bothering to check on it. I swear, every time someone tells me "Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information," I think of instances like these where people make presumptions without even pretending to check the facts first.  RGTraynor  16:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment You profess to want to help correct facts and verify information. What research have you done to support this article? What does baldfaced mean, did you mean to say boldfaced? Because I think that is the correct cliche.AMLFILMS (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep (for now) and speedy close. Honestly, the previous AfD has only just finished. If you don't agree with the "no concensus" closure, then take it to Deletion Review or raise the matter with the closing admin. I'd like to assume good faith, but the nominator seems to be making a POINT here. PC78 (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • And yes, the closing admin did comment on his decision here. PC78 (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • What the closing admin said was that he overturned a clear consensus on the unproven, unsourced assertion by the SPA who created the article (and who has no other edits on Wikipedia) that the subject was an Emmy-award winner feature actor ... and the SPA, User talk:AMLFILMS, happens to have the same initials as the subject of the article. The closing admin said that he'd get around to researching this by midweek, but on such desperately threadbare assertions by an SPA with probable (and obvious) WP:COI issues, the AfD should never have been closed as a Keep or NC in the first place. If the point that nom is making is that the closing admin was at level best terribly careless, hear hear.  RGTraynor  17:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • All of which should be taken up with the closing admin or Deletion Review. PC78 (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. If the previous result had been Keep, then I would agree that having a second nomination so soon would be problematic. But the result wasn't Keep, it was No Consensus. That simply means that consensus is yet to be reached. How can consensus be reached if wikilawyers refuse to allow the matter to be discussed? The nominator here is not being disruptive, and he is not trying to make some arcane wikilawyered point. He is simply trying to continue the discussion so that we can reach consensus. Bear in mind also that there is ample precedent for the renomination of No Consensus AfDs, as here for instance: [2]. Qworty (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • In the example you give, there was a six week gap between the close of one AfD and the start of another; here there was less than 24 hours. No one is refusing to let this matter be discussed, but there are certain ways of going about things. As I said above, rasing the matter with the closing admin or Deletion Review would have been preferable to starting up another AfD. Why not give Philippe the benefit of the doubt and allow him to do his research? He's already said that he will be keeping tabs on the article. Why the urgency in trying to get this article deleted? Why not give it a chance before restarting the discussion? I'm sorry, but I fail to see how reopening an AfD this soon, simply because the outcome was not "desirable", is anything but disruptive. PC78 (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Great. Would you mind explaining how it is "disruptive?" What, if anything, is this disrupting?  RGTraynor  18:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There wasn't a keep. There wasn't a delete. there was no consensus. Meaning no decision whatsoever. Inspite of the overwhelming evidence against the article, and the utter inability for the author to provide proper sources when pressed. The "Emmy" claimed was a regional Emmy for a show that aired in the DC area, and the competition was confined to the DC/Chesapeake Bay area, not national. Even then, there was nothing provided by the author to confirm the claim except a challenge to call the local branch of the academy. The onus to provide the source is on the author, and his statement appears to me as a flat refusal to do so. Even so, I took up that challenge. It has been over a week since I emailed the Capital/Chesapeake branch, and all I have to show for it is that the show did exist and that it aired on WUSA. No reply to confirm or deny the Emmy award or even a nomination. The author claims no association with the subject, and that the username is merely a coincidence. Bollocks to that. There is so much evidence to the contrary that good faith can no longer be reasonably assumed. DarkAudit (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - although DRV would have been th preferable route, the second AFD nomimation has been made. The article has no reliable sources to establish notability and all previous incarnations of the article don't meet verifiability -- Whpq (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Totaly fails WP:NOTE. Hint of probable WP:AUTO. Can't really understand why it didn't go 1st time. --New Kind Of Grey (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Per WP:BIO, created by single purpose account, for a non-notable extra.--Adamfinmo (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have come to the conclusion the Wiki institution is politically and personally oriented and some of the debates sound as if the writer has an agenda and not rooted in critical thinking, a sad note about this country, but moving on. It is obvious most of the debators have done no research and are commenting without reason. Good intentions from these people do not help. I will try to help educate again. I have supplied 250 websites, which include, pictures, photographs, and scene stills, some of the links maybe broken because a character is missing or the link is being updated, some have been changed, however the others are ligit and exist. This person must be an actor because only an actor can be nominated and honored for 2 Emmy awards. I have submitted links, phone numbers, addresses, references to verify the Emmy Awards. He has starred on In Our Lives for 60 or more ep. for 7 years. Regardless, if this show is good or bad is irrelevant, the fact is it existed and he was contracted and worked on it. The term "Extra" has not been used for almost 10 years now the correct term is Background performer and Background performers are well respected, I looked it up, even on your Wiki site: Background performer, SAG productions require a minimum number of SAG members be employed as background performers before a producer is permitted to hire a non-union background performer in their production. For television productions, the minimum number of SAG background performers is 19, and for feature films, the minimum is 50. Often, due to the uniqueness of a role, or constraints on the numbers of available SAG performers or last-minute cancellations, those minimums are unable to be met. When this happens, producers are permitted to fill one or more of those union spots with non-union performers. The non-union performer chosen to fill the union spot is then issued a union extra voucher for the day, and that non-union performer is entitled to all the same benefits and pay that the union performer would have received under that voucher. After collecting three valid union vouchers for three separate days of work, a non-union performer then becomes SAG-Eligible. The SAG-Eligible background performer may continue working in non-union productions and is not required to join the Guild before performing in another SAG production as a background performer. According to the FAQ on the SAG website, this "three voucher rule" is in the process of being phased out.[4] There is a difference between an extra and a SAG Background performer. I made another leap and called Screen Actors Guild, American Federation of Television Radio Artists, and Actor Equity Association. Apparently, he has been a member of all unions for almost 20 years. This guy has to be an actor. Through more research I found these articles,

Interview/article "The Commonwealth Times" (USA) 30 August 1995, Vol. 27, Iss. 3, pg. 1+6+10, by: Sara Kukorlo, "To the other Shining in Sheen's Shadow " "The Washington Post" (USA) 20 March 1997 "The Fairfax Journal" (USA) 24 November 1995, Vol. 57, Iss. 227, pg. C-6, by: Jen Chaney, "Actor has an 'Edge' in filming new picture" "The Springfield Connection" (USA) 2 November 1995, Vol. IX, Iss. 44, pg. 10+19, by: Jennifer Lafley, "Actor films movie in Northern Virginia" "The Burke Times" (USA) 26 October 1995, Vol. 2, Iss. 80, pg. A-1+A-7, by: Caron Carlson, "Living on the 'Edge' actor turns store into set for his new movie" "The Burke/Fairfax Station Connection" (USA) 26 October 1995, Vol. IX, Iss. 43, pg. 1+6+29, by: Jennifer Lafley, "Lights, Camera . . . Action! Actor films movie in Northern Virginia" "Loudoun Times-Mirror" (USA) 18 October 1995, Vol. 197, Iss. 42, pg. A-12, by: Heather DuVall, "Cameras Focus on Airmont" "The Washington Times" (USA) 5 August 1995, pg. B1+B2, by: Mensah Dean, "Going from bit parts to the 'Edge'" "Georgetown and Country" (USA) August 1995, Vol. 3, pg. 1+5, by: M.J. Firestone, "Double take" "The Enquirer-Gazette" (USA) 20 July 1995, Vol. 112, Iss. 30, pg. A-1+A-5, by: Ken Garber, "Actor uses stories and silver screen to change lives" "The Fairfax Journal" (USA) 7 July 1995, Vol. 57, Iss. 130, pg. C-3, by: Jen Chaney, "Hometown boy does a double take" "The Burke Times" (USA) 15 June 1995, pg. A-9, by: John Reosti, "At 26, Burke Center Film Veteran Aims Camera at Hollywood" "The Burke Connection" (USA) 8 June 1995, Vol. IX, Iss. 23, pg. 1, by: Jennifer Lafley, "Burke actor takes his shot" "The Port Gazette Packet Port Plus" (USA) 8 June 1995, Vol. CCXXII, Iss. 18, pg. P-1+P-3, by: Robert MacMillan, "Big deals in works for actor" I called everyone of these newspapers and talked to the clerks and found these issues do exist. To say this actor is not notable is a different issue. We can agree he has done all of this work, which to me, is amazing. I personally could not do half the stuff he has accomplished or even begin to know how to do it. I actually watched the John Adams episode and saw his name in the credits. If that is not giving an actor credit, I do not know what is. "There are not small parts only small people." Notable means: conspicuous, memorable, great, remarkable, noticeable, noted, outstanding, unusual, and uncommon. He also inspires me to take pride in my job at the lab. He is an inspiration worthy of giving him one little page on an institution that houses 2 320 000+ articles on the English version. I do not think he is powerful enough to bring down a whole institution as the importance of Wikipedia, and I donot think he is any more important than any of us. However, I do think his story is an interesting and inspirational one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 09:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC) AMLFILMS (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• "We can agree he has done all of this work"? Not a chance. The sources given are from user-submission run databases. People can claim almost whatever they want there. The branch of the academy has not confirmed or denied the Emmy, but only say the show exists. DarkAudit (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• So your educated opinion is, none of this exists and all of this is made up by this guy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 14:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment So I am curious, and maybe you can teach me something here. What would be the purpose of this guy, randomly throwing out information? I am sure its not so he can earn more money or make his life better. That is just a guess. And for the answer to my last question, why would this guy not list-- nothing but-- blockbuster movies on these sites, why list the majority as crap? If you think Transformers and Forrest Gump are blockbuster hits and respectable works of art, I think you missed my point. I am saying if he is going to just make up stuff and list it why not chose respectable work like La Regle du jeu, Dekalog, La Vita e bella, or even Le Fabuleux destin d'Amelie Poulain. Also, if I am not being too forward, what is your Academic background in film Brian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 14:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that Forrest Gump, which grossed over $300 million domestically and over $300 million internationally, and was the highest-grossing film of the year 1994, was not a blockbuster hit? Anyway, the quality or lack of quality of Forrest Gump is hardly my responsibility -- Mr. Lacey himself chose to participate in the making of that film in the uncredited role of "National Guardsman". I don't think that the subject is lying about the movies he has worked on. Rather, I think that he is trying to list every project he has worked on whether his particular role was significant or not -- and usually it wasn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Another idea hit me, why would he only list himself as a 2 time honored Regional Emmy award recipient and not a National recipient or even an Academy Award winner? That is the biggest mystery, at least to me yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 15:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• CommentAnother question, since I have never done this before, do I keep working on the article for this guy or do I wait until all this riff-raff is over? And if I am suppose to keep working on it, does the information stay or do I have to worry about computer glitches continually erasing the valid information?AMLFILMS (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If you could make the article better now, you certainly ought to do that. If the article becomes better now, some people might see this discussion, look at the article, and then come back and recommend in favor of keeping it. If you wait too long to improve the article, it might get deleted before you get around to improving it. I don't know whether computer glitches are going to erase valid information, and I doubt that anybody else could predict such glitches either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Oh one more question so I can understand your idea. Are you saying he has done none of this work and therefore is non-notable? Or, are you saying he has done this work, only that it is Background artistry work and therefore is non-notable? Or, are you saying he is an actor because he is with Screen Actors Guild, only he has done only Background artist work and therefore is non-notable? Also, I will call the Regional Emmy Awards branch and talk to Sue personally. I will tell her what is happening and to expect your call if you like. I know trying to get in touch with these people is almost impossible, the same thing almost happened to me after I called all the newspapers. I would actually like to do what you guys do, this is fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 15:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Alright, I have a question. Considering that you are the creator and sole editor of this article, and that your user name shares initials with Lacey, why are you referring to yourself in the third person and asking others about your motivations?  RGTraynor  15:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Again, I have said this before, I am submitting this article and am not the subject matter. Second, I am learning like everyone else here, for all I know this guy could be a fraud. If he is, I would love to find out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment My last question was not recorded, if it is not too forward what is your academic history with film Taynor?

• Reply: It is too forward, especially since I am not the only person to whom you've asked it. I do not need to "prove" my credentials -- to the degree anyone can over a computer -- to judge articles in AfD discussions based upon their verifiability, notability and adherence to Wikipedia policy and standards. I strongly suggest you cease to ask people this.  RGTraynor  17:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This article suffers from two problems. Firstly, Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. I've yet to see any reliable source for the Emmy, for example. AMLFILMS claimed above that he was "honored for 2 Emmy awards", yet this Awards page lists only one. Secondly, most users seem to agree that Lacey isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The corresponding guideline is WP:BIO; one of the relevant lines is: "Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." His uncredited roles can be disregarded entirely, leaving him with basically two roles which might fit: The 1997 movie Edge (not to be confused with The Edge), and the series In Our Lives. Both seem to be rather non-notable themselves, leaving Lacey without "significant roles in notable films". His award can also be seen as a claim to notability, and if we could verify it, I might be persuaded to change my opinion on this article. But right now, we have no verifiable claim to notability. To answer one of AMLFILMS' questions: If you can improve the article, addressing the concerns raised here (ie by adding reliable sources), you should do so now. Given that up to now no one but you has argued for keeping it and that deletion looks likely, I'd say other work on the article might be a waste of time, but it's not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy I can think of. I don't know what glitches you're talking about, so I can't answer that part of your question. Huon (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Well to answer your question, information and reliable sources I added to the article mysteriously were deleted, when I asked before Darkaudit had claimed he did it, I just assumed this was a computer glitch problem. As for the "honored for 2 Emmy awards" the phone number again is 301-587-3939, speak with Diane Crew or Sue Ann Starke. Although I am starting to side with you guys, even with this there really is nothing here that is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 15:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment A national Emmy claim would be much easier to prove or disprove. If there were such lack of evidence for a national Emmy as there is here, the article would never have made it as far as the first AfD, it would have been speedied outright. I've called the regional branch. I've left emails. No response to confirm or deny the Emmy. In any case, a phone conversation is invalid per WP:RS as not verifiable. Considering the stature of the station that produced "In Our Lives", the amount of credit that is given to Mr. Lacey on the IMDB page in comparison to the full body of his work is suspicious. IMDB is used to back up other sources, but is not generally considered reliable because of it's user-submitted entry nature. DarkAudit (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I do not think my last message was posted. What is suspicioius is does this Regionial Emmy place even exist? Until now I never even knew there were Regional Emmys. I thought there were just National Emmy's. In any case even if this Diane Crew or Sue Ann Starke do confirm these honors is this article even notable?AMLFILMS (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

These are the member stations of the region. The competition was only among these stations (give or take any stations added or removed to the list in the intervening years). So you're talking about a region from Baltimore to Richmond, and the show only aired on one channel in DC. DarkAudit (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Background performer. The article's sole defender goes on and on and on and on in his efforts to prove that Lacey is a "background performer." Well, I am certainly convinced of it. And I am just as surely convinced that "background performer" equals NON-NOTABLE. As for his desperate suggestions that we phone or email so-and-so, that would be nothing more or less than WP:OR, which is expressly forbidden. Qworty (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject's filmography consists primarily of uncredited roles in films and television, most of which were for characters without personal names (such as "Truck Worker" or "Russian Guard"). The rest of his work consists mostly of his own low-budget independent films which have never received a commercial theatrical release as far as I can tell, and a few years on a local television show. Supposedly he won two regional Emmys (at two different ceremonies in the same year?) for the local television show, although searching the Washington Post on the ProQuest database doesn't find evidence of that. The chapter that awards these regional Emmys doesn't even bother to keep a list of past winners dating back past 2003 on its web site, which gives one an idea of how significant they are. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as previous AfD closed ONE DAY before this second nomination. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Not only did it close with no decision made whatsoever, the decision to close was made in contradiction to the direction of the debate based on potentially false information. DarkAudit (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I just received an email from the Chapter Adminstrator of the Capital/Chesapeake Bay branch of the NATAS. They were able to confirm that Mr Lacey did not win the Emmy as he claimed, but was instead given a Production Certificate by the show's producers for working on the show. DarkAudit (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Yeah, it's about time for an admin to close this and delete the article. Given the repeated and ferocious insistence by SPAs that this non-notable subject is in fact notable, as well as the repeated proffering of "evidence" that turns out not to be true, I'd be happy to see it Salted as well.  RGTraynor  17:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Hear hear. I second the gentleman who nominates this subject for a thorough salting. Look at all of the time and energy this trivial matter has taken up, simply because an extra--cough, cough, excuse me, a background performer--decided to come here to write an article about himself, and then, when it was quite rightly prodded for deletion, flagrantly violated WP:COI by showing up here in person to constitute the sole voice in his own defense. And now it turns out that the most "notable" fact proferred by the individual is--let me try to phrase this as delicately as possible--not in the strictest or even loosest terms congruent with the facts. Salt, salt, salt, salt salt away, salt this one like a snail... Qworty (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2008 (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.