Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Gertler


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 18:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Gertler

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. "References" in the article are all peripheral and are not about the article subject. (i.e., "and x's manager, Andrew Gertler, said..." or "with his manager, Andrew Gertler")  Article smacks of self-promotion. red dogsix (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support deletion per nom Elgatodegato (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete No good reliable sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete plenty of reliable sources just need to read them, they discuss the subject in great depth, see my full explanation on article's talk pageWHOISFANDOM (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC) — WHOISFANDOM (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Don't Delete Agreeing with WHOISFANDOM here. Plenty of reliable info on this guy to fit significant coverage, reliability, and independent coverage. Ardensword1789 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC) — Ardensword1789 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Disagree just read an article in the sources that has plenty on him... also he's been on the TV news and in some print stuff here that's not listed in the article if anyone can find that too to add to the sources. But i think theres plenty. CatCatCatLover (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC) — CatCatCatLover (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment New users who's only contributions are to support WHOISFANDOM- looks like sockpuppets to me. I've started an investigation. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - See Sockpuppet investigations/WHOISFANDOM. red dogsix (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - appears to try to inherit notability from an alleged client.--Rpclod (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply - Rpclod in the aritlce you've linked to re: the subject inheriting notability from an alleged client... it specifies that " If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." I would say that is grounds for keeping this article, along with the many other explanations provided, and the in depth articles on the topic. Your referencing / reasoning is improperly guided and again like everyone else you've seemed to not actually read the sources. I'd encourage everyone to do so before suggesting deletion. Also as my previous argument (seen on the article's talk page) specifies, this notabiltiy is not simply inherited. It is commented on and detailed in numerous articles. These articles may be titled about the subjects clients, but do go into depth about the subject as well and the subjects notability as an individual. In the first source in fact, there are 7 full paragraphs just about the subject and their notability. --WHOISFANDOM (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC) — WHOISFANDOM (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Definitely some sockpuppet comments above, but the subject does display notability with the support provided in the article and is in complete accordance with both WP:GNG and WP:BIO so regardless should not delete on that basis. mb12427 (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC) — mb12427 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep The removal requests here appear to be on the basis of self-creation, and if so this should be investigated and the users involved removed from Wiki. But that aside, this article itself appears to fit the guidelines for a biographic article of a publicly known & notable figure. Some sources used are only passing mentions, but most do go into depth on the subject to some extent, including one article about the subject in HitQuarters (which from a brief search I did, and it's wikipedia aritcle which says the publication is noted for it's "in depth interviews with industry figures" I have found this to mean it is a reputable music industry publication. It has also done interviews with Simon Cowell and many other popular artist managers. The Billboard source also provided goes into depth on the subject as well and that to my knowledge is another reliable and indepedent source. So I would not remove the article. jeckellandhyde 13:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC) — jeckellandhyde (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - If one looks at the HitQuarters article, one will note the article is a primary source and is not secondary in nature. Again, the article is not supported by non-trivial references.  red dogsix (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply I do think you are right in that much of the article by HitQuarters is primary source as it is interview content, but there is also secondary commentary from the publication in the article as well, including HitQuarters noting that he is a "key contributor" to the artist's success. Also, HitQuarters is a publication reliable and known to only interview notable industry figures, and the Billboard, New York Times, Guardian, Mashable, and other 5-6 sources are all entirely secondary, and all note the industry & public importance of the subject, which would certainly make the subject notable and grounds for encyclopedic inclusion and not deletion.  jeckellandhyde 20:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC) — jeckellandhyde (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - A brief paragraph in the HitQuarters article is far from significant secondary coverage and I'll say it again, "References" in the article are all peripheral and are not about the article subject. (i.e., "and x's manager, Andrew Gertler, said..." or "with his manager, Andrew Gertler")  red <b style="color:#000;">dog</b><i style="color:#000;">six</i> (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep On the basis that there is continued plus significant and dedicated coverage on the matter for over a year. Nerbbauman (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC) — Nerbbauman (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - I'll say it again, the coverage is far from significant and the "References" in the article are all peripheral and are not about the article subject. (i.e., "and x's manager, Andrew Gertler, said..." or "with his manager, Andrew Gertler")  red <b style="color:#000;">dog</b><i style="color:#000;">six</i> (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - This displays all characteristics of notability. There are multiple events of notability between the signings of multiple popular artists all with reliable and independent sources. The subject is credited as notable in all of those sources as a main contributor/reason for those successes. The coverage doesn't seem to include many articles that are entirely about the subject as per red <b style="color:#000;">dog</b><i style="color:#000;">six</i>, but that is not grounds for deletion. Within those articles there is still significant coverage on the subject, including multi-paragrph full biographic coverage giving his history, why it is a notable history, and some articles that continue to tell an entire story about the subject as the driving force behind the artists' successes. (i.e. Andrew Gertler started at this job, introduced X to ____ record label, X got signed to ______ record label as a result. OR Andrew Gertler was a key contributor to X's success, here are the factors behind the success).  All of these reasonings are present and are grounds for notability. There may be a peripheral comment here and there, but there is also a multitude of non-peripheral coverage as displayed. And 12 or so sources all consistently telling those stories over a period of multiple years is certainly significant coverage, in addition to a ton of articles found in a simple Google News search that are not used but also include the same significant coverage to establish notability.  —HaRvEyWaRbUrN TaLk 13:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC) — HaRvEyWaRbUrN (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment If the consensus is that this topic is notable or if there is no consensus regarding notability, AND if the current version is deemed to have been written by editors that have too much of a conflict of interest, then I would recommend a closure of either "send back to DRAFT-space" or WP:STARTOVER with no prejudice against (and even encouragement for, if there is a clear consensus that this person is notable) the creation of an article by editors with no conflict of interest. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  17:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Update (note: this update is after Joseph2302's reply):  In light of the results of the SPA I strongly recommend that if this closes as "no consensus regarding notability" that it be deleted under WP:STARTOVER with the logic being that Wikipedia's stance on not rewarding bad behavior should trump the normal "no consensus = default keep" at least in this instance.  If this happens, the closing admin and other interested parties keep an eye out on who edits any re-created article.  If there is an actual consensus that this person is notable but no consensus to keep this particular article, then my previous recommendation (which was not "strong" and which gave more options, including sending back to DRAFT) stands. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  04:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced they're notable, but would be fine with an experienced editor trying to write a new article about them. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am also not convinced the individual is notable and I am not sure the article would not be deleted with the delete comments in the AfD. The article could still be recreated if better resources are established.   red <b style="color:#000;">dog</b><i style="color:#000;">six</i> (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Important Comment As per Sockpuppet investigations/WHOISFANDOM, I have struck out the comments of all the confirmed, definite sockpuppets. If I've done this incorrectly, please feel free to amend (unless you're a sockpuppet). I've kept Nerbbauman's comment, as they aren't 100% confirmed sock, so it's up to admins to decide that. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2015 (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.