Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Law (actor)

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 03:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Law (actor)[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 proposed this article for deletion but it was contested due to the sole source in the article having significant coverage. However, my point still stands that the source is about his son and daughter, Jude Law and Natasha Law, more than him, if not then it's just one source. A Google search gives no sources that prove notability to this person, many are about his son. Thus, this article fails WP:SIGCOV. I doubt that the information already in the article needs a separate one, it can be merged to the Natasha Law and Jude Law articles. Spinixster (trout me!) 02:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Actors and filmmakers. Spinixster (trout me!) 02:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - WP:BIOFAMILY "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person." — Maile (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-This was distributed to Academics and educators, so I'll just point out that the article (currently a stub) gives no indication that WP:NPROF is satisfied. Qflib (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with Maile66 and per WP:INVALIDBIO That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A) Ckfasdf (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2024 (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.