Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Michael Lacey

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Philippe (talk | contribs) at 19:41, 6 April 2008 (Closing debate; result was no consensus to delete; default to "keep"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 no consensus to delete; default to "keep". - Philippe 19:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Michael Lacey

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

Seems to be a non-notable actor, pretty much all roles uncredited or very minor. Polly (Parrot) 19:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, barely more than an extra. Regular role as a Secret Service Agent in The West Wing is about the most high-profile thing he's done (I assume he occasionally had lines). --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclusion, This site has just been started and needs time to come in accordance with Wikipedia regulations.

I think Aaron Michael Lacey should be included because he is a 2 time Emmy Award honored actor and has worked on over 200 TV and Movie projects. He is a notable and still working actor. I have actually seen him on tv and film, I know he starred on over 60 episodes of In Our Lives, had featured roles and bit parts. The most high-profile thing he's done (I am guessing is he was honored 2 times by the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences). —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 00:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC) — User:AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete Page is full of "uncredited" claims. If subject was not credited, then it cannot be listed here. Google search to try to verify claims of an Emmy revealed a regional Emmy in D.C, but only from user-submitted sites. Sources provided are user-submitted database sites, and are not generally accepted per WP:RS as reliable sources. DarkAudit (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclusion, Emmy regional Emmy in D.C. verified through the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Washington DC Regional Emmy Awards May 11, 1991 and December 14, 1991 call Silver Spring Maryland contact 301 587 3993 President Sue Ann Strake for verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 01:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've stricken out all the "Inclusion" (apparently = "Keep") !votes other than the first by this user. One gets only one boldfaced recommendation. Deor (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclusion, uncredited parts can be deleted, however the actor is still in the motion picture and/or paid full salary for the work, how are those parts listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 01:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC) — User:AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Inclusion, over 250 external links have been erased which verified certain information, this is noted for the record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 01:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC) — User:AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Many of those external links were broken or contained no information beyond the subject's name. It would be better to include just a few very good external links than many that are no good at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is increasingly evident that the subject and the author may be the same person. That brings into concern conflict of interest concerns. The growing list of "uncredited" credits is getting longer and longer. This is completely unnecessary, no matter what the final outcome of the AfD may be. These appear to be credits as extras. Extras are just that. Extra. Inherently non-notable. DarkAudit (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think Brian has a great point, I am in no way a representative or agent of the subject, however I have been following his career for several years and took an interest in one of my film classes. What is the count of uncredited credits versus starring credits, did I even get them right? What are the definitions of Extra for America, in Europe here their are no extra people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 02:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC) — User:AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Almost none of them are "starring" credits. They are almost all as extras. And nearly all of them are unnecessary and bog down the page. You do not need to list every episode of every series he may have appeared in. It's overkill. DarkAudit (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. According to IMDb, most of the subject's film and television appearances have been in uncredited roles or as characters without personal names ("Truck Worker", "Russian Guard", "National Guardsman"). His most significant role appears to have been in a television series titled In Our Lives which reportedly ran for 14 years but apparently failed to leave any impression on the Internet other than its IMDb entry apparently aired only locally in one area. The fact that the article was created by User:AMLFILMS about someone whose initials are "AML" and makes "FILMS" continues to raise conflict of interest concerns in my mind. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my screenname stands for American Medical Labs where I work and Films is my minor at Johns Hopkins University, unfortunately I have never made a film in my life. Again there is no similarity or connection with the subject. What I think is overkill is the structure of the format, however that can be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 03:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I could be wrong. But if you think that the current structure of the article is overkill (in terms of repeating the same names and titles over and over again), I agree with that. The same information could easily be conveyed more efficiently in terms of number of words and lines used, and if the article were edited that way, it might help the article here, at least a little, in this Articles for Deletion discussion. But that is a separate issue from notability, which is still in doubt. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He's apparently trying to take writing, directing, and producing credits for a film called La Cudata. A google search for that name comes up with the Italian title for Downfall (film). Triple Trouble was released in 1918. The names may come up in searches, but not at all in the same context as this article. DarkAudit (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment Google searches for "In Our Lives" only gives the IMDB page. The listing for "In Our Lives" seems to be far too Aaron Michael Lacey-centric to be authentic. Since IMDB is user-submitted, I have strong doubts about the veracity of the existence of the program. DarkAudit (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A little more digging shows that the show may have aired on WUSA, then known as WTOP/WDVM [1]. Even that page only deems it worthy of passing mention. DarkAudit (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources about the subject, and no significant roles -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment I found trailers for the films in question on youtube. If you type in Aaron Michael Lacey on you tube you can actually view the trailers for some of the films, I also found a site with stills of the actor in the movies he claims to be in http://aaronmichaellacey.actorsite.com/photo.html hope this helps.AMLFILMS (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not. You need verifiable, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You've given us his home page. Not independent. You've given us YouTube. Not at all reliable. Nothing you've given us so far is usable in any way whatsoever. DarkAudit (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Poorly written article but the subject is notable.Callelinea (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you figure that? We have nothing but roles as extras and multiple unverified claims. Not one reliable, verifiable, or independent source has been provided. DarkAudit (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment In my research the 250 web links posted to the article and then, strangely, was erased. Let me know if you want a list of them again. Also, his starring roles were erased as well. The erasing of the verifiable sites probably were a computer glitch. I would be happy to post them again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 06:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are still in the edit history. Nearly every single one of them is a user-submitted site. I hate to sound harsh, but linking 250 references for an actor who has done virtually nothing but extra roles for the last 15 or so years is ludicrous. The links won't change that reality. Wikipedia is not variety or The Hollywood Reporter. DarkAudit (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many of those links were either broken or contained minimal information. You would be much better off finding some better sources rather than just reposting those links. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with all you guys he is notable. Who in their right mind would list detailed work that was not true? If he did do that he should have listed himself in blockbuster movies. Also, whoever wrote this article, I think Parot, you need to write more then just two sentences and you need to format the movie. Thanks, Carl. Gorfocsid (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
    • He did list himself as being in the blockbuster movies Forrest Gump and Transformers, two of the top 20 highest grossing movies of all time -- as well as other prominent movies such as Dave, In the Line of Fire, Twelve Monkeys, and Live Free or Die Hard. But according to IMDb, his roles in most of those movies were uncredited and probably non-speaking. Being an extra, even in popular movies, is normally not enough to establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Despite a sizable filmography, he appears to be little more than an extra, and I have been unable to find any reliable, independent sources that might establish notability. It would be helpful if a decent ref (i.e. not IMDb) could be found for his Emmy win, and it would also be nice to know what it says about him in the print source. Incidentally, I did find an article about him on the French Wiki (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Michael_Lacey) which has been around for about two years, though it doesn't appear to add anything to our own. PC78 (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know I must assume good faith, but "American Medical Labs" does not exist. Not in that form at least. The primary author has been completely unable to reasonably provide anything remotely satisfactory to WP:RS. Author was told that self-published and user submitted sources were unacceptable, yet persisted in trying to supply more of the same after being told. All evidence points to author and subject being one and the same, in spite of denials. Nothing has been found to confirm authors claim of Emmy awards. DarkAudit (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Brian, since you have a personal issue with existence, you are telling me, this does not exist? Do you exist?

American Medical Laboratories, Inc. 14225 Newbrook Drive P.O. Box 10841 Chantilly Virginia 20153-0841 U.S.A. Phone: 703-802-6900 Fax: What do you mean nothing has been found to confrim this guys Emmy Awards, I gave you the number. Emmy regional Emmy in D.C. verified through the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Washington DC Regional Emmy Awards May 11, 1991 and December 14, 1991 call Silver Spring Maryland contact 301 587 3993 President Sue Ann Strake for verification. Can you restate what you told me? I am starting to believe this is more of a personal issue for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs)

  • Template:Deletevote as poorly sourced BLP, Wikipedia:RESUME Toddst1 (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Phone calls and emails WUSA and the Chesapeake Bay branch of NATAS only confirmed that the show existed and it won some awards. Nothing specific on who. Awaiting further response from NATAS after request for the relevant dates. Of course, a phone call or an e-mail would not be considered a reliable, verifiable source. DarkAudit (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He is an extra who has also done some manual labor around movie sets. He is in no way a notable actor. I have searched the entire historical archive of Google News for this guy and have come up with exactly ZERO HITS: [2]. If he were indeed any kind of notable actor, there would have been at least one news article about him since the beginning of time, and there hasn't been even one single thing about him. I'm also going to start investigating some of the accounts that have been commenting here, because they are starting to look like WP:COI, WP:AUTO, and WP:SOCK. Qworty (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aaron_Michael_Lacey&oldid=203816435"