Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lohan

Michael Lohan's inclusion in this encyclopedia is not necessary. He broke the law, but he is hoping to change. Having an article about him is not helping and is only and unfriendly reminder of his difficult past with both the law and his family. Also, if he weren't Lindsay Lohan's father, he would be forgettable, and only gets the little tabloid coverage he gets because of his daughter's status as a star. He has done nothing notable to be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Stephe1987 23:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Lindsay Lohan. Capitalistroadster 01:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lindsay Lohan per Capitalistroadster. Most of the actually relevant information is in her article already. RadioKirk talk to me 01:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Or maybe not even a redirect. Just delete it! A redirect seems pointless. How many sites give Michael his own page? None. Except Michael II because he was in a movie. Is Michael I even worthy of it? Why even keep a page if all it's going to do is redirect to another page that has one or two sentences about him? It seems like a waste of site space to me. Stephe1987 02:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

A redirect takes up virtually no space—literally, "#REDIRECT [[Lindsay Lohan]]" is all. Perhaps we should check with an admin to see how often the page is read. If it's called up even a few times, the redirect would be the way to go. If not, then a straight delete would be warranted. On the other hand, the redirect also would kill a second bird—anyone looking for her brother also would look for "Michael Lohan" as he is not known or credited anywhere as "Michael Lohan II". :) RadioKirk talk to me 03:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect this and delete Michael II. Stephe1987