- 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. j⚛e decker talk 02:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Al Lutz
AfDs for this article:
- Al Lutz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
After examining the first AfD on this article and perusing the edit history and talk page of this article, I think, at the very least, this demands another review at AfD. Frankly, the first AfD should have ended in delete, not no consensus. In any event, subject's notability is dubious at best.
Safiel (
talk) 15:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment BTW, I noticed the first AfD had been vandalized, with the vandal removing several of the pro-keep arguments from the page. I have since reverted the vandalism. Still, clearly this article warrants consideration. Safiel ( talk) 16:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The notoriety mentioned in the last debate seems to be that he has been mentioned in newspaper articles. If everyone ever mentioned in newspapers articles had a Wikipedia page, there would be a lot more entries. There are no awards or accomplishments of merit listed. I don't understand why the last one ended with no consensus. The arguments certainly seem to favor deletion. Every pro argument seemed to have rampant speculation or personal opinion. There is clearly not enough citations or reliable evidence to warrant keeping. While he may be notable to Disneyphiles, this is Wikipedia, not DisneyWiki. WP:BIO. sig1068
- Delete Al Lutz no longer is writing blogs on MiceAge anymore, hasn't been cited in the media since a mention of him in 2007.. 75.73.83.182 ( talk) 21:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete No indepeth, independent coverage of the type that is needed to establish notability. On the other hand, notability is not temporary, so the fact he is no longer doing something is not important. We even have wikipedia articles on dead people, as shocking as that may be. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The fact that Al Lutz was a source citation in a tabloid article about Lindsey Lohan's birthday party at Disneyland does not mean he is notable. Toring ( talk) 14:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- 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.