Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Lande


 * 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. Waltontalk 13:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Lande
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears not to meet notability criteria in WP:BIO. All references are either advertisements or trivial mentions. I bring this to AFD because the subject was previously proposed for deletion and contested. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Looks like he's most famous for being somebody's son/grandson, but notability isnt inherited. Other than the book he co-wrote with his father, I dont see anything else worth notableCorpx 03:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete per Corpx; strange google news archive results. John Vandenberg 07:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:PERNOM a bit and WP:GOOGLEHITS to some extent


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 07:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Writing one book does not satisfy WP:BIO. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAPOLICY Andman8 17:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete &mdash; doesn't appear to be very notable, but does turn up a few interesting results; however, not sufficiently so to keep it (and there's an apparent whole conflict of interest thing going on). Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I think I'll go with what Jachin uses as far as deletion goes.

"please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD."

I wouldn't dare venture into WP:Othercrapexists so I'll just say the clean-up template should stay and the article should stay. I'll try and pull out any pov prose and cite more/new sources. Discussing notability is pov in itself as there is no set definition of what is or isn't notable on wikipedia. That's why there are mountains of text guidelines. WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, WP:FICT, WP:RS, WP:WEB, WP:NOT, etc.

I've found using these guidelines and not my preconceived notions or what is and isn't notable I come back to my original argument.

I'll cite WP:Notability and Notability (People)

First the broad notability

Significant coverage - Co-written two major books published by Random House and National Geographic Books. As well as the author of Bob Hope: America's Entertainer, an awarding winning A&E television documentary.

Sources - random house, Santa Barbara News Press, Ingram, Library Journal, Etc.

Reliability - Has been Editor of Wine Newsletters, articles, television documentaries, e and books and an international Expert on Food and Wine. Trustee of the Bob Hope Foundation which awards millions of dollars every year to worth individuals and causes.

Independent of the Subject - This goes to WP:SPS


 * it is relevant to their notability;
 * it is not contentious;
 * it is not unduly self-serving;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

And also to independent third party sources like the April 2006 article about lande in the nob hill gazette and the may 21 Marilyn McMahon "Lande guides you to Best in the World" article in the Santa Barbara News Press. The cigar connoisseur was also written up in the Library Journal and Ingram all reliable substantial print sources.

Onto the specific Notability (People), and to a lesser extent Notability (books)


 * The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

(The magazine articles, newspaper articles, and editorial reviews as well as his books)


 * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

(Published Random House and National Geographic Books, well reviewed and highly ranked books on Amazon.) Andman8 15:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP published author Callelinea 20:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * weak delete unless notability can be further demonstrated from third party sources. It is not enough to write two books, even from major publishers. It is necessary for the books to be recognized as significant as shown by non-trivial reviews in reputable third party sources. (& two books is rather low, unless one is a best seller a or wins an award). The video script also is not documented, nor are reviews of it--the King show is where the subject was a guest from the human interest point of view of knowing anecdotes about his grandfather, but that is not encyclopedic notability.  DGG 22:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the community the article now has notable sources from the Washington post to CNN to the San Diego tribune as well as cleaned up prose that no longer reads like an advertisement. The amount and notability of sources of course partly justifies an inclusion in wikipedia coupled with the fact he is of course an author of two major books, time magazine exec, etc. Seeing there is no definitive line in the sand as to what is notable and afd pages are in fact a discussion not a raw vote I see more than enough evidence for inclusion. Andman8 05:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very minor writer with no significant accomplishments, whatever propping up has been done with minor notes in reliables sources and applying of the unwarranted adjective "major" to his two books. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion but it feels suspiciously like WP:JNN Andman8 16:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment There are currently eight quality individual sources independent from Lande himself ranging from national to metropolitan local.


 * CNN
 * Nob Hill Gazette
 * Columbia News
 * National Geographic Books
 * The Washington Post
 * The San Diego Union-Tribune
 * St. Petersburg Times
 * Cigarcyclopedia.

Andman8 16:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide specific citations from these sources? SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Specific Citations? Like pull out a specific piece of the source text and quote it verbatim? Many of the sources are print publications and not from the internet so then do you want page numbers? Andman8 04:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Publication names and page numbers and such so that a reasonable person could go find the source and verify your claims would be helpful. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:31, 6 July 2007 (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.