Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Michael Finley

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J. Michael Finley[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and notability for creative professionals. The article cites no independent, third party reliable source. Searches return many passing mentions but nothing significant written about him. Jbh ^Talk 20:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you like me to get the information from? I know him personally and can attest to the accuracy of everything contained in the article, as backed up by the links on the page. - historic66 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historic 66 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Historic66: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines on what is appropriate to include in the encyclopedia. For articles the most important thing to be done is establish notability. For this we have out general notability guidelines which in short require significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. There are also various specific notability guidelines which give additional, usually easier to meet, criteria to establish notability. In this case those are the notability criteria for creative professionals. If an article subject meets our notability criteria an article can be kept but it is not required to be kept. If the subject does not meet those criteria than there may not be an article on that subject included in Wikipedia. We do not make any judgment about the subject's importance or contribution to society we only judge if there has been enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to allow us to write an informative and neutral article.If you wish to argue to keep the article you must state how the subject meets our notability criteria and how that information can be verified by coverage in independent, reliable sources. No other arguments will have any positive influence on the outcome of this deletion discussion.
So the short answer is — if it is not written in a reliable source it should not be in a Wikipedia article. Since you know the subject you should read Wikipedia's guidelines for editors with conflicts of interest. You may also want to check out this brief tutorial on editing talk pages. Jbh ^Talk 21:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jbhunley: Thank you very much for all those links. I hope my further edits are more in-line with standards. I guess I should ask my question a different way: I linked to third party, independent sources but can also attest to their accuracy, as I got it straight from the mouth of the subject/grew up with them. In a 100% non-snarky way, does that make me a subject expert? I should also mention I chose to do this of my own free will and not on his behalf, if that was a subject of concern. Historic 66 (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only material published in reliable sources and in some very limited situations statements of the subject (ex. in an interview) can be used in an article. Information from non-published sources ie conversations, emails etc. may never be used. You should take a look at Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons if you have not yet. Jbh ^Talk 22:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both GNG and the actor specific guidelines. Wikipedia is not the place to publish private correspondence,

such as personal emails, letters etc.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for now - Since Finley at the moment doesn't meet the notability standards; I would lean toward deleting. If an article on him is warranted later and there are some reliable sources that would help, then I would have no problem with an article for Finley. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2018 (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.