Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Wisne (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Wisne

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Andy Wisne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per this article's previous AfD, should the COI user continue to add content, it should be deleted without prejudice. As they have now done so, let the deed be done. — Dædαlus+ Contribs 06:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Minimac,Paul McDonald, and Schmidt for at least fighting for me. I'm too exhausted to fight to keep a page that lasted over 18 months. I didn't like the page anyway as it sort of boxed me into a specific stereo type. Regardless of the articles on concussions or not I have been appraoched by two of the biggest movie casting directors in the world, Jane Jenkins and Roger Musseden. Call the info irrelevent I just want to clear the air and the slate and declare a new beginning. I think any person that has started and been a regular rotator for the University of Notre Dame is automatically notable. A specific reference declaring an abstenance from prejudice might just be a preliminary attempt to cover up the fact that's exactly what it is. I guess combining sports with entertainment into an encyclopedia page at this stage without my first movie yet may be too difficult Although I have performed in Sitcom, Improv, Stand Up,Sketch and Drama which have been credited onto the imdb. Major feature sources where used but oh well. I'll just be patient for a decent page. I've had to fight like hell to survive and now it feels like just the beginning again. Kudos and love to everyone- even the haters. This is all I'm going to say — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs) 04:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


By the way, here are their edits.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 06:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete COI issue is a non-starter for me. I just don't see this person meeting the minimum requirements as laid out in the notability guidelines. A few newspaper articles about a concussion they suffered as a football player does NOT amount to "significant" coverage in my opinion. There needs to be a LOT more coverage for this one to rise above baseline WP:GNG standards. --Jayron32 06:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And if he starts disrupting this AfD, like he did the last ones, something should probably be done, like what was for the one before this one.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 06:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly should we keep an article about a non-notable individual? You don't explain this in your rationale.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 22:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because I think he surpasses the high jump bar of notability. The standards are shaking, the bar is rattling, but he cleared it barely. I'm not emotionally attached though, so if the consensus calls for overturn that's okie-dokie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs)
Again, please explain your rationale; why do you think he passes GNG? I don't see any non trivial significant coverage.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 04:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh okay there's the references in the article, and combined with the other coverage found. HINT: click the "NEWS" link in the "find sources" section at the top of this very page and you will find articles covering the subject in the following sources: Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Indianapolis Star, Chicago Tribune, Detroit Free Press, New York Times, New York Daily News, USA Today, and others. Some contain passing mention of the subject, others are feature news articles about the subject.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Results in a search engine doesn't qualify as sources; please list specific articles.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 21:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Here's the results of the link you posted in the nomination:

  1. "No. 6 USC vs. No. 7 NOTRE DAME; Role Player; Pain was a big part of …" Los Angeles Times - ProQuest Archiver - Nov 27, 2002
  2. "Freak injury could end Wisne's year" Chicago Sun-Times Nov 9, 2001
  3. "Irish set to start must-win stretch" Indianapolis Star Nov 3, 2001
  4. "Wisne tackles the lively arts ; An ex-Notre Dame nose guard swaps..." Chicago Tribune Dec 1, 2002
  5. "IRISH KNOW THEY CAN'T SPELL BCS WITHOUT BC" Detroit Free Press Nov 11, 2000
  6. "COLLEGE FOOTBALL; The Irish Take Advantage Of History and …" New York Times - Aug 29, 1999
  7. "IRISH FIGHT FOR RESPECT VS. HUSKERS" New York Daily News - Sep 8, 2000
  8. "Chicago Sun-Times: Tarnished ND program needs Gruden - " Chicago Sun-Times Dec 16, 2001

Your demands are starting to be disruptive. You posted the link when you nominated the article, you shouldn't need me to click on it and show you the results.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you have 22k edits and you still don't know that the link is part of a template used with the twinkle script, which I clearly used to nominate this article(note the TW at the first edit for this page). As to the sources, I'll get to that in a moment.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 22:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I wasn't clear; I wanted links to the sources, not a general list. That aside, just glancing over the titles of the sources, I see what appears to only be 3 articles, while the rest appear to be passing mentions(again, just from looking at the titles, since you didn't make finding them easier).
As to being disruptive, I'm being nothing of the kind. I nominated this article for deletion, and it's outcome is built upon the weight of the arguments. I like the article is never a reason to keep it, so if you think the article is to be kept, I'm going to ask why, and I'm going to need evidence. As you have 22k edits, you should know this, and stop assuming such bad faith of others.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 22:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know that the link is part of the template you posted. Hence, my comment "You posted the link when you nominated the article." Everything else is rapidly degrading to WP:WABBITSEASON.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one refusing to discuss their argument, and claiming disruption of others when they push for it. As to the sources, which I said I would review(as apparently you haven't):
1. Actually about him.
2. Actually about him.
3. Not about him.
4. Actually about him.
5. Not about him, again, a passing mention.
6. Again, not about him. Passing mention, and other players are mentioned just the same.
7. Yet again, not about him. Passing mention.
8. Passing mention, article is on a coach's resignation and Andy is mentioned; the article is not about him.
So, we have three 'articles' on him. It isn't disruption to ask you back up your own argument; to ask that you actually put thought and research into it.. as you clearly have not here. All you did is copy-paste the first eight articles you saw, not even bothering to check their content.
Three sources, especially when one of one to two of those sources are of the 'human interest' style that might be written about any non-notable person, is not by any means the 'significant' non-trivial mentions required to meet WP:GNG.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 22:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing how you continue to argue with me and then yet at the same time prove my point for me. As I said above, "Some contain passing mention of the subject, others are feature news articles about the subject" -- let's go with your numbers (because I am tired of arguing). Three articles in major publications primarily about the subject and four as a passing mention. Looks notable to me--barely, but notable. You may believe that is not enough, so be it--we can actually differ in our positions. But there is no reason that I should re-print at AFD any outside article content that can be referenced by a link already on the page. I imagine now you will continue to argue the subject with whomever may come along--I, for one am tired of it and will remove this discussion from my watchlist.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you were more civil it wouldn't have come to this; instead you insisted on assuming what I would do, call me lazy and disruptive; I never asked you to reprint the article content(putting words in my mouth), I asked you to link to the specific articles. You've been nothing but uncivil with me. You would do well to read WP:CIVIL, and learn to treat other editors with equal respect instead of assuming bad faith of them. I suggest you check yourself. I would assume someone with 22k edits would know this. I guess I was wrong.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 23:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the sources provided above, I had read them, and have also done a google and google news search. None of the provided sources, and nothing I found, for my needs, passed the minimum standards to support an article. It should be noted that WP:GNG merely notes that the presence of these sources presumes but does not guarantee the existance of notability. The sources provided do not amount to either enough nor the type of coverage I expect from notable subjects. --Jayron32 23:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's nothing here of value, and I don't care much about the COI angle either. A college football player gets a concussion and can't go on to the NFL, that's a dime-a-dozen story. Reliable source coverage is clearly rebutted by WP:BLP1E guidelines, WP:ATHLETE is a fail since he didn't go pro and isn't notable enough for intercollegiate play, and as for the WP:ACTOR, he is listed as "Bar Patron (uncredited)". Tarc (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kudos to User:Daedalus969 for keeping his eye on this article since the "keep" of June 2009.[1] Shame on User:Andrewwisne for coming back after his 18 months of NOT touching the artcle to edit it again as if he WP:OWNed it.[2] I note, as was noted by others at the 2nd AFD, that the subject does seem to meet WP:GNG through coverage in news articles[3] and books.[4] We have ways to deal with disruptive COI other than deleting a kept article. As the author was repeatedly warned, and did not seem to learn from his experiences 18 months ago, how about a temp block to prevent further disruption? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:58, 14 December 2010 (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/Andy_Wisne_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1144340162"