Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Neal


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 13:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Andy Neal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The original version of the article is full of promotionalism, is almost certainly a COI creation, but had what appears to be credible claims to some level of notability. So I engaged in some heavy copyediting, and once that happened (+BEFORE), there's not enough left that actually stands up both as reliably sourced and proof of notability (WP:ANYBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER). Instead what's revealed has been claims that don't stand up based on the sources provided (eg: SDCC hosting), or information that is self-sourced from interviews, which explicitly indicate someone who's not yet made it at the time of the article, but who hopes to, and who aims to get promotional coverage (ie: sources do not provide sufficient evidence of General Notability regardless of their quantity and reliability). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 11:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 11:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 11:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment the fact that the references are mostly in pdf and hosted on an external site is a bit concerning. Also, how is it possible that he is not notable. At the very least the pdfs are a copyright violation. There are 23 references listed.104.163.153.162 (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If the copyvio question were the only issue that'd be simple enough -- just remove the URLs since WP:V would have been satisfied. Per nom, I know there's an unusually high quantity of refs to claim that notability isn't satisfied, but there's not much there that isn't passing mention/appearance, self-promotional regional newspaper interviews, and/or indications that he wanted to reach a level of success that hadn't yet been attained. For instance if we take the stories from 1994 San Diego Union-Tribune and 1997 Daily Times-Advocate as reliable, both indicate that he has yet to make it as of those stories, so any earlier stories are even less likely to demonstrate he's met the notability bar -- and there's nothing there that suggests a decline from a peak, either. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep the older references do in fact establish notability. Diannaa swung by and rev-deled the pdf links. It;s now easier to see that notability is met.104.163.153.162 (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete quantity of sources does not pass the general notability guidelines, if none of them reach the level of the GNG. That is what happens here. Interviews in local paper that are part of the promotionalism of the boosterist tourist industry are not what is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How about the LA Times?104.163.153.162 (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's another reliable source which actually shows non-notability at the time: "He met Cassandra Peterson, who does Elvira, Mistress of the Dark on Los Angeles television and other gigs. He figured to become the male equivalent. Now he's trying to break into show business as the crypt-kicker Armando Creeper". ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: What appears to be a previous AFD at Articles for deletion/Brother Andy. Possibly a sufficiently different article from this one. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ! dave  14:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreed that this article does not meet GNG. Seaweed (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2017 (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.