Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lane Allen

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. ✗plicit 00:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lane Allen[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I can find nothing to confirm notability of this casting director. He was married to Betty White for two years but notability is not inherited through association with a notable person. The article sourcing is very weak, a couple name-check mentions, and a listicle (5 quick facts about Lane Allen, Betty White's Husband). Online all I could find were a few more name-check mentions in tabloids and another listicle. Fails WP:GNG criteria for inclusion unless decent sourcing is discovered. Bringing it here for feedback. Netherzone (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being married to significant people does not make him significant. Not really covered for his own sake. Pikavoom ^Talk 09:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As someone who leans heavily towards inclusionism on Wikipedia, it's rare for me to vote for deletion. But in this case it's warranted. Notability is not inherited, and the stub-level information in the article does not bode well for his notability in any sense beyond having married Betty White. Moncrief (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can see why he has a Wikipedia page, he was married to two notable actresses, but there are some problems, if someone can add reliable information about him, and expand the lead section, add a few more sections, etc. this should be all good. Unless this article gets improved, i say Delete. In other news, i removed the link from White's and Randy Stuart's article per the nom. Popculturelover2021 (talk) 6:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. He has a Wikipedia page because Betty White died and someone decided to create a page for her second husband. The page didn't exist a week ago. Moncrief (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody can find improved sourcing that establishes notability in his own right as an actor and/or casting director. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so simply having been married to notable people is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself, but that's all this article focuses on as written — what we need to see is "passes WP:NACTOR as an actor and/or WP:CREATIVE as a casting director", not just "was married to Betty White for two years seven decades ago". Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject spent half a century in the entertainment industry, with lengthy stints as a casting director, talent agent and actor whose earliest known acting role was in 1940 and his last part was 46 years later, in 1986. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to a large degree — Wikipedia has scores of entries for small-part actors. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of which Wikipedia should have. It's certainly true that we have a lot of bad articles about non-notable actors who aren't reliably sourced as passing WP:NACTOR at all, on the inaccurate grounds that merely listing roles is an automatic inclusion freebie for an actor in and of itself — but the answer to that is to delete those articles about actors who haven't been shown to pass NACTOR, not to keep other articles about actors not properly shown to pass NACTOR. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Each such individual can have his or her day / week at AfD and consensus will ultimately decide if his or her list of credits is sufficient to earn a Wikipedia entry. Depending upon participation and without pointing to this nomination as a typical example, if there is one, it may simply come down to a difference of opinion among inclusionists and deletionists as to the relevant interpretation of WP:NACTOR. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:17, 10 January 2022 (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.