Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andrewwisne (talk | contribs) at 23:17, 25 May 2009 (→‎Andy Wisne). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Andy Wisne

AfDs for this article:
Andy Wisne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Slight amounts of importance are asserted, yet most of the sources are from imdb. The article has one source from LA times, while source 8 and 9 are the same page, and both are only a passing mention. Source 11 is the only real source from the Tribune. The second source is simply his bio from a football website. Opinions? — Dædαlus Contribs 05:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - A single secondary source in sports section is questionable to support Notability. His acting career has not achieved enough momentum to support Notability. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply I believe the fist paragraph to be a distortion of the truth.- Andrewwisne- May 25, 2009—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)
  • Keep -Andy Wisne meets and passes all WP:GNP standards. This article passes WP:NOTE. Andy Wisne was feaured on the cover of The Los Angeles Times in a powerful and moving story read by millions. He was also part of just as moving if not more so of a two day story that won Writer Jeff Carroll first place by the Society of Professional Journalists. He is also former starting University of Notre Dame football player. His stories were published in many other official and respected Ap sources including the Chicago Tribune, South Bend Tribune, and Irish Sports report among others. Throughout Andy's football career he has been in many notable publications, was featured with his family on an NBC halftime special, and played football in front of millions on networks such as NBC,ABC,CBS, and ESPN. Notability can be stemmed from a decade ago creating momentum into his acting career to the present. The powerful nature of those stories in the highest degree of publications is without a doubt worth nobility and passes all WP:GNG and WP:Note standards TONE can be altered if need be.- Andrewwisne- May 25,2009—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I ask that an indepndent administrator review this as it has become more of an emotional debate. I wanted to void this but it might be impossible given the nature of the individuals bio. But all information is factual and relayed by reliable sources. Thank you for listening. AndrewwisneMay 25, 2009
  • Note I have replaced a keep from below to the one above as the issue is addressed above. I have only added one keep for the sake the sentence is more relevant to the issue and nuetral point of view.- Andrewwisne- May 25, 2009—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I have created this article and there are many reasons for nobility. Notre Dame football player, subject of an award winning piece, overcomming tremendous circumstances from being a football player for notre Dame and being an NFL prospect. It abruptly ended with a concussion. The timeline between the Los Angeles Times cover story to the award winning piece "Out of the Darkness" documenting a unique and notable story of overcomming tremndous obstacles. Being a Notre Dame football player has been enough for many former players to aquire their own page. In response to being no momentum as an actor exempifies the fact of subjectivity. In fact to many on the glass is half full side Andy is an up and commer. Recently meeting casting directrs ( Jane Jenkins - Angels and Demons/ casted the original Rat pack n 1981, and RodgerMusseden / Wedding Singer/ Superman Returns). Andy's story is one that is notable in itself but as written above being a Notre Dame football player is notable. Being featured on the LA Times and having an award winning story written that helps society in a positive manner ( many people will be helped by what the story is about). Notre Dame football player, stories that are a positive influence in society, part of a family legacy of football, documnted overcommer of sever obstacles, and yes an up and commer. It should not be until he gets a movie that a page gets started. I believe the facts out weigh subjectivity or whether some one likes or dislikes the individual or the article. One only has to visit his imdb site to recognize that he chose to be recognized for positve things instead of giving into the negative ones. Andy is well known apart from just being a Notre Dame football player. His name is symbolic for fighting through obstacles. Something this country needs. It seems as though the readers may be looking for reasons why it should not be included instead of reasons why it should. Andy Wisne is notable for multple reasons. Mix those together and you have a high degree of notability. Again just being a Notre Dame football player is Notable. Andy is well known and his nobility is one of a positive nature. This guy needs a break ================ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs) 06:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IN RESPONSE TO Daedalus969 - ALL SOURCES ARE USED CORRECTLY AND ARE SOURCES OF INTEGRITY. FURTHERMORE ALL GENERAL GUIDELINES WERE MET REGARDING NOTABILITY. BEING A NOTRE DAME FOOTBALL PLAYER IS IN ITSELF NOTABLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs) 22:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General notability guideline Shortcut: WP:GNG If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. *The article Andy Wisne meets this criteria

1. "Significant coverage"- means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.* The article Andy Wisne meets this criteria

No, it doesn't. I has several trivial mentions, but nothing concrete to establish notability.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply There was nothing trivial in any of these stories. These were true stories that contained extreme depth, centrally focussed on the subject written about,written by major journalists of major publications, and read by millions of readers who in some fashion or another took interest. The stories stood for depth. Considering they did not would undermine other accomplished people. Undermining this would set a high standard of earning a credit as what is deemed nobel for anyone. His opinion that the information regarding Andy Wisne eatured in the Major stories in major publications is trivial is offensive and is his opinion . All information is factual and derived from Official and highly respected AP Sources and official sources tracking and backing artist's credit. Regardless if Andy is just an upand commer does not hide the fact much of is work is solkd on amazon.com and other sources where movies and shows are sold. Someone who is well known and tells a factual story that helps people becomes notable. Especially by a source such as The Los Angeles Times and the degree in which it was written. It was published before Notre Dame played Southern California during Thanksgiving week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)
Biased? That is a personal attack with no evidence to back it up. Strike it through if now. Or find some evidence which proves that I am biased, even though I am not. It is a personal attack otherwise, which is strictly forbidden.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the line "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[1]" The depth of coverage is anything but trivia. In a nuetral point of view Significant coverage has been met and then some

No, it is trivial. Period, it mentions you in passing, that is what we call trivial.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply You might not have read it but the dpth of the story and the depth of coverage is anyting but trivial. The story's were about Andy Wisne - not in passing Forgive me if that sees like false judgement. The story's were about me. The Los Angeles Times and Notre Dame football are two integral parts of the American fabric in one way or another. Those are just two singled out areas where the subject at hand at certain times, more or less has been in some manner the focal point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)
You've proven nothing false. I read the sources, and I made my judgment, as did all the other delete votes which outnumber keep votes. Do not make assumptions about others.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if it came as an assumption. I believe that if it was read thoroughly most would agree that they were major stories in major publiations that were extremely moving to most. If not moving to one the very nature of the stores apart from the emotional aspect are substantial enough to claim nobility- Andrewwisne May 25, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs) 22:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will find, if you take the time to read, that mostly everyone here disagrees with you. Currently there are four delete votes and two for keep. If you want people to evaluate the article, then as FQ suggested, I suggest you stop responding here and let the AFD run it's course. Further responses will not help you in the least, and will in fact decrease the chances of this article being kept.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[2] *Writers Robyn Norwood (LA TIMES) and Jeff Carroll ( South Bend Tribune) are both writers of integrity and reliable.

IMDB is not a reliable source, period.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply IMDB means Internet Movie Data Base. It could be compared to say that of an NFL.com which many people who own a wiki page used as referaces. IMDB keeps official track of an artsits work and records. Obviously that was a subjective opinion on your part. Without getting into an argument about positive and negative mindsets lets go back to neural point of view. IMDB is the official movie databse. Just like many NFL players use NFL.com- I have so many other sources I could use but this should be sufficient. A reason why it wouldn't would be entirely speculative

3. "Sources,"[3] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[4] ** Because of the depth and length of the sources from the Los Angeles times featured article on Andy Wisne and South bend Tribune there is a plethera of information written by established writers of integrity. Again the storys were long, in depth, and moving. Including Significant coverage and reliable.

I already covered these in my post.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[5] ** All infomation was derived from sources other than the auther himself. Including the 3 previous points mentioned above the subject at hand is notable for positve influence according to story's written by major publications independent of the wikepedia author. All information is true and correct as referanced.

Again, read point made at three.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Reliable sources- goes without saying

It does, really, as IMDB is not a reliable source, and all mentions are trivial.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply reiterating- IMDB means Internet Movie Data Base. It could be compared to say that of an NFL.com which many people who own a wiki page used as referaces. IMDB keeps official track opf an artists work and records. Obviously that was a subjective opinion on your part. Without getting into an argument about positive and negative mindsets lets go back to neural point of view. IMDB is the official movie databse. Just like many NFL players use NFL.com- I have so many opther sources I could use but this should b sufficien. A reason why it wouldn't would be entirely speculative
  • reply Many Notre Dame players have aquired their own page for simply being a Notre Dame football player. Furthermore additional information was included after aquiring their page. Andy Wisne has had to fight for everything in his life and it should come to no surprise that he has to battle for something that is obvious to some and less obvious to others. Andy Wisne is noteable for being a Notre Dame football player and being the focus point of two moving and powerful stories. Other information included would be considered notable by millions and is referanced.- 24 May 2009—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)
Lastly, I have moved this comment in regards to chronological order, and removed your second, keep vote, as you are not allowed to vote twice. I shall tell you the same on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all what section of the newspaper should have no bearing and if it does it is cancelled out by the depth of coverage and the multiple amounts of noteworthy accomplishments. All information in both refeanced stories were true. Both authors are authers of integrity. The article that came out in November 27, 2002 was featured on the cover of the sports section of The Los Angeles times and was a two page full length article that is still talked about to this day. It was also featured in the "arts and entertainments section" of th Chicago Tribune" The article "Out of The Darkness" written by writer Jeff Carroll was a two day two part story that won the writer first place by the society of professional journalist. Meaning a moving and touching story. Is that considered noteworthy? Not only was all information factual but it helped people/society in a postive manner. All referances were used correctly and are surces of integrity. Being a Notre Dame footall player is in itself notable. Being the subject of two moving and powerful true stories, that the subject told the writers, are other reasons. Within the big scope there are many other noteworthy elements. If one has read the storys and researched the subject at hand this arguement becomes totally and utterly irrelevent —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs) 22:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-added this comment in good faith, but do not keep adding keep votes. Such is against the rules. The rule is, one vote per user, and that includes fake accounts, meaning. One vote per user, not per account. As to your points, they are invalid with GNG. I have already addressed them. Good day to you sir, do not try to vote fix again.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If being a football player doesn't make him notable he certainly didn't achieve notability after 2002 because all three news mentions from 2003 to present are absolutely trivial. Drawn Some (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply A man that has cow bone implanted in his gum, started for Notre Dame in the trenches, survived two near fatal car accidents and lived to tell about it- These are all just part of the big story/ Trivial?? What kind of people are we dealing with here on Wiki. It kind of hurts to realize respect is hard to come by no matter what hell storm you have been through. As tiring as it is I will continue fighting. Being a Notre Dame football player is noteworthy ( a starter) losing a 100lbs in 5 month after a career ending concussion ( just one of many noteworthy facts you can read about in the story- have you read it?) and having the story come out in the LA Times and in the arts section of the ChicagoTribune is noteworthy. That as just the first phase. I could go on and on. Expression not vanity. Have you read the story's?
  • Delete Being the subject of an award winning article doesn't confer notability on the subject - but it might entitle the subject to a mention in the writer's article, if he has one. Performing in a pilot (but presumably not in the series if there was one) and auditioning for things are not particularly notable. Pursuing a movie career - so do many others. Few manage to catch up with it. Having been a football player (of whatever set of rules) - no, not without more info. While I wish the man well in his chosen career, I don't feel he meets with Wikipedia's definition of notability yet. Note - not Webster's definition. Peridon (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The creator of the article has a username which is the same as or very close to the name of the subject of the article. Either this means it is a self-written article (and probably spam or vanity), or the creator is posing as the subject of the article. Neither are well advised actions at Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply The very point is that your missing th point. I don't give a rats butt if I'm the subject- thats political language. I am well known, been through hell and back and turned it around in a positive manner- all of which is well documnted. That is Noteworthy- no other way around it- aside from being a starter for the Univesity of Notre Dame football team. It is a tricky argument because the very word Notre Dame creates emotion in one direction or another. It looks to be a simple argument on both sides. What would a man filled with intergrity decide on this page??—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)
  • reply Damn write I wrote this. I think this is a matter of likers and haters. Because if we come back to neutral point of view there is absolutely no reason Andy Wisne, myself, is not notable. I have had to fight for everything in my life and I'll be damn if I let someone sepculate for me. I know whats going on and the information has integrity, is reliable, and I think the common folk would say what I have done so far and the story of my life to be noteworthy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)
That's a pointless comment. Many people write their own stuff. That should have no bearing on this argument—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)
No, it is not, and it is rude to say otherwise. The reason the comment has a point is because many people do not write their own stuff, as they will have a clear bias in favor of themselves, and more often then not, write in a POV that favors themselves, such as how you continuously say that you deserve a break. Well here's a news flash. Wikipedia is not here to give out breaks.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply The point is not being the subject of an award winning piece. The language was used, quite honestly, in attempt to stay some what modest in this conversation. I passed those story's on to the writers. They were about me and my life. What they stood for, what they were about moves society in a positive way. Your configuration of the facts I'm laying down is going into a different direction. If we do have polar opposite opinions then we must come back to neutral point of view. If all information is indeed factual and the person at hand did play football at Notre Dame and is well known for a story that moves society in a positive fashion, and overcomming major opstacles while enduring depression then his accomplishments need and must be recognized. For many many people have read them and some moved by them. You don't even have to combine all this together to get to notability buy lets do it here. Let's combine it all. I think we have a conflicting pattern of negative and postive trains of thought. Again nuetral point of view- For they are well documented—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)
It's more like relevant news and a man expressing himself. That's not vanity. If you think a man who had cow bone implanted in his gums, being diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and having a career ending concussion is vanity- you need to check yourself. These are sources that are not only reliable but have integrity. Ok- if you consider them small then they are all part of the big pictue within the true story of a man who has overcome obstacles. But none of it is small to me. As I know I'm very blessed—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Being diagnosed with bipolar disorder is notable for the person concerned (and their family and friends), but not as a qualification for Wikipedia. Cow bone (or bone from human sources) is not uncommonly used in xerograft procedures. Having concussion end your career is only notable if there was a notable career in the first place. Having near-fatal car accidents is not a qualification either. Sorry, but there's not much left. Especially when the majority of the first few pages of Google hits are MySpace and so on. Peridon (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea the world was filled with this many angry customers. Well, maybe I did. Anyway the information was combined in a long story within multiple story's. In the "Big Picture" those were elements included about the journey of Andy Wisne thus far. As far as the google thingy I think if you examine it further you will find that is not the truth. Maybe your imagination is getting the best of you? Imdb, a celebrity profile, work on amazon and his ND profile aren't myspace. Usually when you sign a contract you have to read the whole thing- metaphorical language —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs) 23:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply That is the furthest from the truth. Everything written is true and factual. It is well documented. It is just another form of the truth. Nothing manipulated just written in brief. It is a story of the truth and nothing but the truth. If it is only the truth then neutrality becomes a pointless topic. It is passing information along to one source to another. That is it in a nutshell.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)
  • Comment If you think I'm biased against Notre Dame, you're mistaken. It's an American university (I assume, not having come across it). I'm not American and wouldn't know one from another until I look one up for some reason. Angry? No. Just trying to get an unpalatable message across. The 'give him a break' comment confirms my suspicion that this is either spam or vanity. Probably spam. Someone is in need of a break. Fair enough. However, Wikipedia is NOT here to give breaks. It's to record things considered worthy of record. It is not for the promotion of companies or individuals. Football players wherever they are from do not automatically get pages. Sometimes they slip through the net and get caught later. As to the reliability of IMDb, it relies on submitted information and thus falls into the class of sites regarded as unreliable. (Wikipedia also is regarded in this way.) Blogs and forums are not reliable sources, either. PLEASE SIGN your posts with four ~ things. Peridon (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have just looked in IMDb http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2650971/ and http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2650971/bio and remain unimpressed. Peridon (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply You have the right to your own opinion. My imdb is what it is. I'm not really concerned what you think about that. I just want to get all the paper work done so I can focus on getting a movie- Andrewwisne May 29 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs) 19:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through tediously and fixed the formatting. If anyone disagrees with my edits, and, take note, they were simply made to make this AFD easier to read for others, feel free to revert me, I shall not edit war nor argue.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, thank you for this. Eeekster (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Peridon (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to WP:ATHLETE, athletes are inherently notable if they've played in the highest professional level, which this person has not. According to WP:BIO, people are notable if they have been the subjects of multiple nontrivial independent articles, but in this case, that's a real gray area, as there are just a few articles, and they are of the heartwarming human interest style that might be written about any non-notable person- even I have been the subject of an article of this sort, and I don't think it would qualify as 'nontrivial'. His acting career does not reach the level of notability, and the article is so promotional in tone that it will require a complete rewrite in order to meet WP:NPOV. As an athlete, his main accomplishment appears to be that his career was ended by an injury, and as an actor, his main accomplishment appears to be a supporting role in a movie so obscure we don't have an article in it, and television roles like "bar patron" and "party guy," neither of which are strong arguments for notability. If I'm wrong and he really is notable, then presumably someone other than himself will inevitably be inspired to write about him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Wisne_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=292320980"