Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Paskoff


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Paskoff

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A production executive without a lot of independent coverage. I found one article in the Hollywood Reporter and a mention in Variety. But there was more substantial coverage of his marriage online than his career and most of what I found were online directory listings which are not reliable sources. Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Andrew is a respected executive in the TV industry with a strong background at some of the industries top content providers, namely MTV and SONY. Scott Paskoff too. These guys are both pioneers of reality TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlottegatsby (talk • contribs) 22:22, 22 January 2016‎


 * Delete The only sources I can find are a Hollywood insider stating that he had been given a position with "light-hearted entertainment" and the NY Times wedding announcement (which I assumed is a paid announcement, but anyway, getting married isn't notable). He's still young, and may become notable in the future. LaMona (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is this such a big deal to you and who are you to determine what or who is considered notable?and my wedding announcement in the NYTimes was NOT paid for. You can't pay for that you have to be selected and it's not easy. In fact being chosen to be listed in the NYTimes wedding announcements is a prestigious distinction which actually makes it, and me, notable. Also, you can check all the article links on my Wikipedia page, which are publications and accurate sources that also make me notable! I have worked hard to achieve in my career and such achievements  are considered notable, whether you choose to believe it or not. I feel as if this page deserves to remain and I don't think you, whoever you think you are, have any reason to think otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewpaskoff (talk • contribs) 07:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read Notability (people) for examples of what reliable sources and achievements are considered notable by Wikipedia standards which is how we make decisions on whether or not an article should be kept. If you have more independent coverage of your career from reliable sources that you can add to your article, please mention them on the article talk page as you have an inherent conflict-of-interest here. Liz  Read! Talk! 18:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This page was not started by me so there is no conflict of interest. It seems to be a witch hunt and not sure why it means so much to you or anyone to spend any time trying to get this page deleted. And again, what is considered notable is subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewpaskoff (talk • contribs) 21:12, 23 January 2016


 * "This page was not started by me so there is no conflict of interest." -- who knows? Your comments have created the impression of COI even if inadvertent. Quis separabit?  23:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   Musa Talk  ☻ 21:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   Musa Talk  ☻ 21:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   Musa Talk  ☻ 21:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I cannot find the kind of significant independent coverage that is required. In fact, I cannot find sources to even verify many of the claims made in the article. It has been extensively edited by IPs who clearly have personal knowledge of the subject. Andrew, you have an inherent conflict of interest here because you are the subject of the article. Who created it is immaterial. Both you and  Charlottegatsby (who created the article and has commented above) are confusing "accomplishment", "respect", or personal "achievement" with "notability" as used on Wikipedia. "Notability" on Wikipedia has a very specific meaning. It means that the subject has been covered in depth and generally in multiple published sources, all of which are entirely independent of the subject. If Andrew (and Scott) Paskoff are considered "pioneers" in their field, then you should be able to find an independent published source that describes them as such. I can't. Voceditenore (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - No signs of better applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  05:40, 6 February 2016 (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.