Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Berman (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy Berman
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Search on Google News found several other people with the same name. "Andy Berman" + "Psych" turned up only name-drops (e.g. "Saladin K. Patterson and Andy Berman are co-executive producers and writers"), and nothing of substance — no significant coverage whatsoever, no biographical information. Searching for "Andy Berman" + "Invader Zim" gave only one result. Similar searches on Google Books gave only books that reprint Wikipedia articles, one name-drop in connection to Psych, and a bunch of false positives.

The only source in the article was an Invader Zim wiki, which is not a reliable source. Although at first glance he seems to pass WP:NACTOR by having two significant roles (voice actor and writer), they are less important than they appear. Although he did voice a semi-important character in a cartoon, it was one that barely lasted past its first season — and as someone who knows a thing or two about Invader Zim, the title character and GIR are far more popular than Dib. Although he did write 20 episodes of Psych (out of a possible 95 so far), no one seems to have paid him any attention for it — none of his episodes won awards, nor do they seem notable enough for their own pages. Although he did write for Freddie, he wrote only three episodes, and two were co-writes. All of his other roles are limited to one episode, or background characters without names. The utter lack of reliable sources for him makes it pretty clear that he does not meet WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: The page was deleted via AFD in 2009, re-deleted via G4 in 2010, and re-created in October 2012. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I found several sources (major newspapers and books) which mention him in various roles, but the keyword is mention, and little more. The subject seems to fail WP:NACTOR. - MrX 03:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 05:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 05:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 05:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to be just a tad more to find when looking under his credited names for his earlier acting work (The "Andy Berman" usage is more recent). Sure, just as with many actors, he has had a number of one-ofs in notable projects, but his roles as significant characters in multiple episodes of notable projects (IE: as Chuck Coleman in 19 episodes of The Wonder Years, as Dennis in 9 episodes of The Jamie Foxx Show, and yes... as Dib in 27 episodes of Invader Zim)   seems to meet the requirements of WP:ENT. Add to this the verifiability of his writing and producing notable projects having him also meet WP:CREATIVE.  We do not judge a person by the least, but by the overall body of work. CREATIVE and ENT are met even if GNG is weak.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would think that WP:GNG would supercede WP:CREATIVE, not the other way around. And so far, I see nothing of him meeting WP:GNG. Every source I found is just a name-drop that says nothing about him. Even the five hits for "Andrew Mark Berman" only say "Character X, played by Andrew Mark Berman…" and nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your perspective, but WP:Notability specifically instructs "notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject" and "A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right," (IE: a box of links to various Subject-specific guidelines) indicating that a topic might be considered notable, even failing the GNG, if it otherwise meets the criteria outlined in one of the more "subject specific guidelines"... such as the "subject-specific" criteria set in the various sub-sections of WP:BIO... as those SNGs allow a reasonable presumption that verfying sources likley exist. Sure... the GNG is the easier way, but it is not the only method. The SNG's are set in place to provide alternative methods for editors to determine whether of not a topic might still be notable enough for inclusion even when the GNG is not met... else there would be no reason to have any of the many SNGs in the first place. Notability is not a contest to see which topic is more popular in press.  While the verification of any assertion in a reliable source is always mandated, per guideline notability does not always depend the depth of coverage of the topic, nor that it be immediately available online.  WP:ENT and WP:GNG are not mutually exclusive.  Meeting one OR the other might be enough to allow consideration of notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But do you think it's really helpful when article contains literally no biographical info on him, just that he was in X, Y, and Z? There's nothing on the guy. Just what he was in. And notability is not inherited from being in a certain work. I can't verify outside IMDb that he's a Chicagoan, even. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The confusion of accepting the essay WP:NOT INHERITED as an exclusionary rule when even that essay supports guideline specifically telling us that involvement in a notable project can indeed impart a notability. Berman was a major character in enough projects, perhaps first remembered as Kevin's buddy in 19 episodes of The Wonder Years. We have enough notability to allow a stub, even if meager. An actor's full and complete personal background is a goal, but as many individuals (through their parents when they are minors) actually protect themselves from paparazzo incursion, it not a mandate. If all we can speak of about a private person is their career, then that is okay. I have not myself done anything more than cursory digging, but will see what I can find later today. Pardon, but I am off to shoot a scene in a project and will be away for several hours.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nominator's too-often-repeated claim that persons involved in the creative arts do not "inherit" or derive notability from notable work they are involved in is disruptive nonsense, contradicted by the text of the essay they and by multiple provisions of the notability guidelines that apply. In fact, it's contradicted by his own userpage, where he states that "just about anyone who's ever had a Top 40 country hit" should have an article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Way to put words in my mouth. "Just about" does not mean that I think all should have an article — some people slipped through the cracks. And again, why is everyone dodging the WP:SIGCOV issue? Where's the coverage of him? Where's anything on him that states any more than that he exists? WP:NACTOR is not set in stone, people. Use some damn common sense. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think you should let this one go, Mr. Hammer. Sourcing is piss-poor but there's a big enough web footprint to indicate sources are out there. Sufficient appearances on The Wonder Years for an article in our pop culture compendium... I actually found a nice piece on his sister that mentions him in passing and have run an interview into the external links. Very weak notability pass. Carrite (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a quote I just ran into that explains my thinking here: "People who use WP expect when they look for an article, to find something." —DGG, WP User Page. Sometimes ya gotta just grit your teeth and wait for sourcing to trickle in from the wilderness... This guy's an actor and a producer, stuff's around. Carrite (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're saying it's okay to ignore WP:RS outright, particularly on BLPs? Then I'll gladly insert into the article that he actually has tentacles growing out of his back and can speak 14 languages, and shoot lasers out of his eyes. And I'll wait until sources trickle in confirming it because hell, who's gonna know it's wrong? We can just screw that whole sourcing thing outright. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Pardon TPH... but no one here seems to be at all suggesting at that proper verifiablity in reliable sources be ignored. The arguments seem to be more in line with assertions of notability allowed under various SNGs can at least themselves be verified in reliable sources.  IE: he is not notable for being "covered", he is notable for works as verifiable in reliable sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Carrite and others, above. There's enough work, and enough coverage of that work, to indicate some notability. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:08, 13 February 2013 (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.