Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Michael


 * 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. The consensus is that enough suitable third-party sources were uncovered over the course of the discussion, demonstrating notability. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 21:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Andy Michael

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod, lacks notability, fails WP:BIO zero references from 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 04:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can't find any sources for this one. Jafeluv (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep since several sources have now been added. Jafeluv (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Search of local newspaper "Concord Monitor" found several articles. Also found a blog on this guy's collection.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.12.68 (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)  — 38.97.12.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment could you provide links to those newspaper articles, its a start but I still dont think we are up to the "significant coverage" required by WP:BIO, also blogs aren't considered reliable sources--RadioFan (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Part of the collection are still available: https://www.ourcommunitystores.com/products-game_used_sports_online-usa-3.htmlAp3253 (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC) — Ap3253 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Another site selling some of Andy's DiMaggio items: http://www.vintagesportsshoppe.com/prewaritems.html Scroll downAp3253 (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid online stores aren't reliable sources. It would help if you could find the person covered, for example, in a published book or a newspaper article. For more information, see our notability guideline for people. Jafeluv (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Please only !vote once. I have struck you duplicate !vote. Edward321 (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and START OVER. The existing article should be deleted its original research / has no sources cited!!!!  FULL STOP.  JBsupreme (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  10:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

site. Cunard (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have several articles from newspapers, but how can I get them on here. Many of them are old and I have them in paper form.  The online version of these papers don't have archives dating back more than a couple of years.  The articles are from the 70's, 80's and 90's.Ap3253 (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Scan the newspaper articles to your computer, and then upload them to Flickr or any other photo-sharing


 * Here's a start http://www.flickr.com/photos/40373106@N06/


 * Delete per the lack of reliable sources. This appears to be a hoax. I cannot verify any of the claims in this article. Cunard (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My opinion has been changed due to the presence of multiple reliable sources posted by Ap3253. Cunard (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral Deletewhile it doesn't appear to be a hoax (going out of the above mentioned websites of online stores), it certainly lacks WP:Reliable sources and fails therefore WP:Notability. By the way the owner of a substantial and significant collection would surely have received an obituary or the like by an online existing newspaper since his death two years ago ... note also that the search function of the website of the metioned "Concord Monitor" is not able to locate anything under the terms "Mitchell" and "baseball" .  Phoe  talk  19:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No idea how I came to "Mitchell", however you're right, as my research has based on the wrong name, my statement above is obsolete and I therefore will keep myself neutral.  Phoe  talk  18:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 *  You searched and voted based on a search of the wrong name - see below


 * Keep for now. Let's give this article a chance. Sources may be added. Newspaper articles may be scanned... I sure hope they are. Geeky card and comic book collections are a dying breed. I want future generations to know all about them. The Edgar Church collection in comics is a notable and well-known story. In addition, while perhaps notable for his baseball antics, there are mentions of participating in wars which is to me admirable and maybe there are sources of something he did... In truth, I just get a good feeling reading this article and like it. I know these are not technical grounds for keep but this is my vote.Turqoise127 (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's "Michael" not Mitchell. Here's what I found, although it's a paid sight to see the full articles.38.97.15.196 (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CMOB&p_theme=cmob&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=allfields(mr%20baseball)%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(%22mr%20baseball%22)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no


 * http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CMOB&p_theme=cmob&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=allfields(doris%20michael)%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(%22doris%20michael%22)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no


 * http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CMOB&p_theme=cmob&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=allfields(andy%20michael)%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(%22andy%20michael%22)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.15.196 (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)  — 38.97.15.196 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment Paid subscription service on the obituary talks about his notability regarding the collection. Not sure how public he was about his collection, so it might not be found on every search engine.  That doesn't negate the fact that his collection was large enough that there are still dozens and dozens of high-dollar items still available for sale.  It's also hard to verify he was a scout for the Yankees in the late 70's, but unless one can dispute the two players mentioned weren't found by Michael, in his home town, the pieces are adding up.38.97.15.196 (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There might be something to this. Take the time to scroll thought the items for sale on this site.  Most of them are from the Michael collection and personally endorsed:

http://www.gameusedsportsonline.com/baseball-mlb-more-baseball-items.html


 * of particular note:

http://www.gameusedsportsonline.com/joe-dimaggio-signed-sunset-league-program-1980-440.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.15.196 (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Local notability at best.. I don't see how his having a large memorabilia collection is notable enough for an article.Spanneraol (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Complete lack of reliable refs, maybe locally notable but that doesn't mean he's Wikipedia notable. See WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE.-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 18:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is met due to the sources presented in the Flickr uploads by Ap3253. Cunard (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks better, better refs but still questionable, Neutral.-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 19:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The sources are coming in and the author might need some time to update. In looking at the items for sale at the sites, some of which include the subject of this articles picture, it's clear he was quite a collector.  While not "famous", I believe this subject to be notable and the article worth keeping.38.97.15.196 (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The links here are not doing much to establish notability. This isn't a game of "find his name mentioned somewhere".  To demonstrate notability, there must be significant coverage where the topic of the article is the subject of the article.  Of the newspaper links above the first one is to letters to the editor mentioning Michael, the remaining 2 are to a standard obits (one for his wife, one for him) that anyone (notable or not) may receive.  The gameusedsportsonline.com links above are to items for sale.  I assume you are suggesting this person is notable based on his name frequently being associated with memorabilia for sale and that this implies that he is a noted figure among the collecting community.  If is the case, I would think there would be some feature articles in a newspaper or magazine covering the life of this man.    That would establish notability.  These links do not.  There are numerous magazines covering sports collecting and books have been written on the subject as well so this doesn't appear to be a corner case.  Also keep in mind that if deleted, it could be recreated at a later date should sufficient sources be located.--RadioFan (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40373106@N06/
 * Scans from various newspapers I'll add more as time permitsAp3253 (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed to keep due to the reliable sources shown in the scanning of multiple newspapers by Ap3253. This article and this article prove that WP:BIO is met, so this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Added more scans to http://www.flickr.com/photos/40373106@N06/ and updated the article. More to follow...Ap3253 (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't think these newspapers show him as anything more than a local figure in Concord. I don't think he is notable enough for Wikipedia. Spanneraol (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with local notability. The numerous reliable sources show that Andy Michael wasn't a marginally notable figure in his day &mdash; he was a very notable one. Notability is not temporary, so this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the requirements for an article have clearly been met. I think his notability extends well beyond local as several newpapers are cited/scanned.  Also, collectors are not often showboaters seeking the national spotlight, so they are often only covered in regional publications as this man was.  His memorabilia collection aside (some of which is still being sold by dealers across the USA), he was also a scout for the Yankess and responsible for signing Major League players, a decorated WWII veteran, and an all around interesting person.  I think this article should stay.162.89.0.59 (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, salt and block the socks. This much puppetry burns me up.  My brother has a very impressive Star Trek collection; he doesn't warrant an article.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep. Please see my comment near the bottom of the page.  PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: PMDrive, I sincerely hope you are not calling me a sockmaster. From your comment above, you have voted to delete the article because you believe that this discussion is filled with socks. This is not a valid reason to delete the article. What this AfD debate should be about is whether or not Andy Michael satisfies the notability guidelines. The multiple reliable sources provided in the Flickr uploads by show that Andy Michael passes WP:BIO. These sources are from reliable news organizations, such as the Concord Monitor (see here and here), Boston Globe (see here), etc (see here and here). Notability is fully established by these sources. You and Giants27 may believe that these sources are questionable because they don't appear on these newspaper's websites. But the reason that they don't appear are that most of them were published more than half-a-century ago &mdash; before the Internet was born. 's uploads do not look forged to me; they are legitimate sources. Notability is not temporary, so these sources cannot be disqualified for being published several decades ago. I hope that the closing admin reads the arguments carefully and weights the ones that actually cite policy. Both  (see here),, , and I believe that the article satisfies WP:N. If you have issues with which of us is a sock of any other, please point it out. "My brother has a very impressive Star Trek collection; he doesn't warrant an article" - true; but has your brother been covered by multiple reliable news organizations? Did he join the army to fight the Nazis during World War II? Has he worked as a scouter for the New York Yankees? If the answers to all three of these questions (but most importantly the first one) is no, then I agree; your brother should not have an article on Wikipedia. But if the answer to the first question is yes, then I must disagree with you and say that your brother should have an article. Likewise, since Andy Michael is discussed in multiple reliable sources, his article should remain on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not everyone who was in World War II is notable.. and scouting for the Yankees by itself is also not notable. Neither if having a memorabilia collection or being covered by local newspapers in Concord. The debate here is definitely filled with socks.. Spanneraol (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but Andy Michael's participation in World War II garnered him reliable sources. His memorabilia collection also garnered him sources. There is nothing wrong with local notability. In fact, this argument doesn't even apply because the Boston Globe is not in Concord, New Hampshire, or even the state of New Hampshire. Like PMDrive, you also make a baseless accusation about this discussion being riddled with socks. Again, I request that either of you point out who is a sock of whom. Cunard (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ReplySpanneraol: This is not the first time you have suggested that Michael was only covered in one small town local newspaper. Actually, the sources are from a variety of newspapers, including the Boston Globe.  If you are not familiar with the east coast, Boston is a pretty large city and that's no tiny local publication as you infer.  As to "socks", I didn't even know what was meant until I looked through the help pages and figured it out.  I assure you, I have only posted using my signature.  I did have another person familiar with Michael, who supplied some source material, take a look at the article.  He did vote and made some comments on here, and if that's prohibited then I apologize.  There is a lot more source information available on this person, but I have to ask how many are required??  This article will get improved over time, but to delete because you don't like the sources seems a bit much.Ap3253 (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Cunard, I am sincerely sorry for making you think I was referring to you as a sock. It's patently clear you aren't a sock. I was referring to the anons who showed up seemingly out of nowhere to support this. Since you were able to uncover suitable printed material, I am more than happy to change my vote to keep. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2009 (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.