Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael James Lowrey

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. With tremendous regret, I might add. Fortunately, you can still read all about this particular celebrity at User:Orangemike, should you be so inclined. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael James Lowrey

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

While I am a big fan of Orange Mike, with teh sources presented he is not a notable person worthy of his own article, I note some of the sources are based on Attack pages and also use wiki as a reference. That being said Orange Mike is an awesome admin and his work here is very appreciated by myself and others. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure he's notable... Though it wasn't very courteous to nominate this just eight minutes after its creation. That said, The Political Graveyard entry counts as one, plus some first-party sources. But it may require some cleanup. Keep ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike might not be notable as a Wikipedian, but look towards the political side. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a google search [[1]] and Google news search [[2]] gets nothing..I'm sorry but in this case you are off base on this one. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have found more if you searched "Orange Mike Lowrey"; but still fails WP:N. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Hong Kong? Try searching Michael James Lowrey and trust me, you will get more. Middle names do matter ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeah I am temporarily trying things out in HK. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did that however it still doesn't prove notability it's a fairly common name and if you review the results none really raise the bar to notability. I guess we just have a fundemental disagreement, you have oseveral days to add sources though so I will check back and if that changes I will happily withdraw the nom but as of now I don't see any reason to do that sorry Bonkers. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Mike is the Michael James Lowrey. I was about to vamp up this article after creation, but it got tagged for deletion too quickly. Never mind, I will work things out. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable minor politician, labor activist and Wikipedian. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol we still love ya here mike! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Hell in a Bucket-we still love you here and you are respected! Thank you for all you have done especially at WikiProject Wisconsin-13:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete. I enjoyed reading about Orange Mike, but he's not notable by Wikipedia standards. --Orlady (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has to be the funniest AfD ever. Even the subject himself has said twice: I am not notable! Haha. Yet this discussion continues. Mike's a great admin, with a lot of humility. I thought this was an Ashton Kutcher Punk'd episode. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of my appreciation for all the hard work Orange Mike (and all other admins) do, I can't see that this would get past WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. And as a courtesy since the subject has requested the deletion as well. Maybe too soon? Maybe if more politicians were like Wikipedia admins things would be better... although sometimes they'd lock the door to the state capitol with the wrong padlock... and then burn it down... um, well maybe not <g> §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - it's pretty clearly established that the desire of the subject not to have a Wikipedia article about themselves does not mean that the article should be deleted (unless, of course, you're a billionaire who "married" your own daughter, want that fact suppressed, and are willing to sue the Wikimedia Foundation into bankruptcy if they don't delete it). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know, but if we're already going to delete the article, we can always say we were nice about it :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teachable moment - Specific entries in Political Graveyard can be direct-linked, i.e. here. Dru of Id (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy; perhaps it is too soon and the subject of this article will be elected to a position which meets WP:POLITICIAN guideline, however I have not found any significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources where the subject is the primary subject of the content sufficient to show that the subject is notable per WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has to be a piss take on Sarah Stierch's article surely?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A clown creates an article about a man who dresses all in orange? Begone, already! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What?! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Begone with that unsubstantial argument! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep A heavily bearded man with a love of all things orange and wearing a fez is definitely notable on wikipedia. We love you Mike! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's what I call an argument with substance. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If List of heavily-bearded, fez-wearing men with a love of all things orange existed, I would surely support Mike's inclusion there. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Is that really allowed? --76.189.111.199 (talk) 08:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This piece by The Law Society Gazette devotes an entire article to Mike. Surely that's something. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying and I think that it definitely makes for interesting reading but the level of notability isn't there, not yet, he may indeed end up having notability if there can be more like this but I think this is the most solid resource we have in my opinion. I do admire your tenacity and admire your conviction. Thank you Bonkers you are a good contributor here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the subject matter of the Gazette article; I just happened to be the admin who was trying to explain Wikipedia policy on corporate autobiographies; Wikipedia was the subject of the article (as it should be). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 27 February 2013 (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.