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The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn by nominator, no opinions for deletion (non-admin close). Guest9999 (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kearns[edit]

Michael Kearns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Seems like a non-notable person. It fails WP:NPOV badly, to the point that it seems like self-promotion. I tried a CSD G11 but that was declined. Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still not convinced he meets WP:N, which states that using search engine statistics is an invalid criteria. He's had some guest starring roles and one-man plays, but seems to fail all three criteria in WP:ENTERTAINER. It says he's an activist, and that seems to be the only thing which might establish notability, but I'm not convinced. Also, few pages link to this. And while this article would need a major cleanup to be kept, i think it's beyond fixing. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Few articles are "beyond fixing", even if you do not wish to do it yourself. There was a valid reason your speedy was declined. WP:BEFORE instructs that a nom look for, examine, and consider the available sources before nominating for deletion. I included a simple g-search to show the dozens upon dozens of sources covering this man's career... not to say "hey there are 3,000 g-hits, he must be notable"... but to elucidate "hey, he was covered for over 27 years in depth in multiple reliable sources that meet and surpass the inclusion criteria of WP:GNG." Before scrolling down to the criteria of WP:ENT an editor must first, per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria, first consider if the GNG can be met. If that inclusion criteria fails THEN one goes down to subordinant criteria to see if he might otherwise merit inclusion by awards or recognition. Had you actually looked at and considered any of them, you might have then seen he has won multiple awards, including a 2008 LA Weekly Theater Awards and the 2009 Producers STAGE Award. You would have learned that in 2008 he traveled to Africa as an AIDS awareness advocate and has been dubbed "The Actorvist". You would have learned that in upon the death of Rock Hudson in 1985, he was then Hollywood’s only openly gay actor... etc, etc, etc. With respects, if you had considered why your speedy prod was declined and actually looked for the sources that explained the de-proder's reasoning, you would have found the in-depth, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that more than meet WP:N... such as San Francisco Chronicle, Backstage, La Weekly, Gay & Lesbian Times, Broadway World, Los Angeles Times, and quite literally dozens more which speak toward the man, his career, his background, or give positive critical response to his stagework. With all respects, you might seriously consider withdrawing your nomination. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually mean to CSD by A7. It's better to AfD to force cleanup than let articles like this be. As it's being reworked, I'll withdraw the nomination. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the best way of getting an article cleaned up is to start doing it oneself. DGG (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2009 (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.
More