Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Sanchez


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy Sanchez

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

Unsourced BLP, created by COI account. Fails notability quite dramatically. DreamGuy (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * G11 per WP:VSCA, very ad-like. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for all reasons given by nominator and Ten Pound Hammer et al, I also endorse speedy deletion. It is entirely promotional, without asserting notability. I couldn't find any online sources indicating even potential notability, little hope for salvaging.Synchronism (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * G11. Looks like a furniture ad to me. - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I find sources:  But I agree that this is written as an advertisement.  Cazort (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a better search term, it looks like he has about seven substantial mentions in the same newspaper. There might be more. But they just show that he is a locally known artist. An article that used those references would meet the basic criteria for inclusion, but would not meet the more stringent criteria as laid out in WP:ARTIST. Synchronism (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The references found are evidence that this article meets the basic criteria for inclusion as confirmed by Synchronism. That is all that is required for any article. Varbas (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigation caught up with him... blocked as sock of banned user, vote invalid, all his edits may be undone on sight. DreamGuy (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Varbas was determined to have been using multiple accounts during a sockpuppet investigation of a user blocked for using multiple sockpuppets to disrupt AFDs and prods with faulty reasons. DreamGuy (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is the case can you provide a link? Or why isn't varbas blocked or topic banned?  If he isn't topic banned/blocked, and there is a reason for that, then his voice continues to carry weight.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The investigation found that User:Varbas was not guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. Attacking me personally is not useful to this discussion. Please abide by your Editing restrictions that have been placed on you by the Arbitration Committee. Varbas (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that you are not addressing that to me?--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was addressed to me, and it's false. No "not guilty" finding was returned, or anything like it. They specifically said it was possible he was the same as the banned user, and it's still under investigation. The banned user is User:Azviz/User:Esasus etc. -- I believe the links at the top of the pages there would go to the main sockpuppet investigation page for those accounts, which currently includes Varbas. DreamGuy (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that he is notable enough to have an article. However, I see little salvageable about the current page.  I think it needs to be either blanked or deleted.  I'm indifferent about deletion--the only really issue is whether or not to preserve the page history.  Preserving the page history would be interesting, to say the least, because it would document publicly the fact that this person was using wikipedia to promote himself.  On the other hand, that's already going to be documented in this AfD.  Cazort (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Looks like a G11. -- Alexf(talk) 22:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete but this is NOT a G11 deletion eligible article. Some people are just too eager to speedy delete some articles.  There MIGHT be something to this guy, if his claim to being the the prizes could be substtiated and shown to be meaningful.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, that this is hardly a clear-cut case and should not be speedily deleted, even though I totally agree that the promotional content needs to be deleted. Cazort (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Even after the article was despamed it is still advertising. (G11 removed). No real notabiltity shown. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. NOT notable.....or interesting. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:25, 31 May 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.