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, with conditions - barely meets GNG, and article is sourced well enough. Because there's an underlying fear of COI and self-promotion, it should be watched and deleted without prejudice at a later date if the COI continues to add material outside of reliable sources (myspace, imdb, etc), citing this rationale. For now, I suggest keeping the article as it is now and leaving it at that. Consider this a warning that further fears of self-promotion will take this article back to AfD, where this will likely be deleted because of the drama it has caused and the thin ice the article is already standing on. --Xavexgoem (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Wisne[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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? — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

!Voting[edit]

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]

Keep Though Andy Wisne may not pass WP:ATHLETE or WP:ENTERTAINER, he passes WP:GNG. Several sources attest to Wisne's notability. Here is an abstract from Chicago Sun-Times; a look at the opening two paragraphs of this article, as well as its title, shows that Wisne is the main subject of this article. The same can be said of this article from the Chicago Tribune; a look at the title of this article (Wisne tackles the lively arts ; An ex-Notre Dame nose guard swaps lots of injuries--and more than 100 pounds--for a promising acting career) proves that Andy Wisne is the main subject of this article. This article from South Bend Tribune is a third source that proves Wisne's notability. Finally, this feature article from the Los Angeles Times is the icing on top of the three other news articles that confirm his notability. Although this article is autobiographical, it passes WP:NOTE and should be kept. WP:TONE issues can be solved through normal editing. Cunard (talk) 23:05, 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]

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]

Comment - The author has admitted to being the subject of the article and has been pointed to the perils of writing your own article. ttonyb1 (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Delete - If nothing else, the acticle lacks neutrality. Perhaps it can be saved, but I suspect only by starting over. Eeekster (talk) 00:29, 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]

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.— Dæ dαlus ^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]

Speedy delete (G4) and salt – Enough is enough. Blatant recreation of deleted material; nothing has been addressed from the mess that was the first AFD. To prevent further drama and disruption, also request creation protection (salting). Someone can go to DRV if this person does achieve any sort of notability and have this article recreated again. MuZemike 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet notability guidelines for either an athlete or an actor. Puff piece. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the article again after a valiant rewriting effort, but I'm afraid I still think the individual does not meet the notability guidelines. My vote of delete remains the same. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - pure spam by subject of the article with a conflict of interest. Fiddling a bit with one's own BLP is not unheard of -- but this is outrageous. The creator ought to be banned. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard has improved the article and stubified it. I would say it's a weak keep now. I'd like to see more than 3 cites to show how he's notable in one category or another. Bearian (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER. Third-party coverage is a typical person-overcomes-injury/bad luck/hardship/whatever human interest story that does not make the subject notable. If his acting career is as "promising" (that word and "up and coming" just screams non-notable) as the article says it is, then perhaps he will be notable per WP:ENTERTAINER in the feature, but right now, he's not. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Eusebeus (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The depth of coverage in the Los Angeles Times article and the Southbend Tribune article proves that Wisne passes WP:BIO. These pieces aren't about Wisne's injury; instead, they are about his life as a whole, briefly touching upon his college years before concentrating on what he has done in the entertainment industry. I don't deny that he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER, but he passes WP:BIO, which means that an article can — and should be — written about him. That's why I have rewritten the article in a neutral, encyclopedic fashion. I would be thankful if you would all reevaluate your votes. Cunard (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in this article establishes notability, despite an apparent rewrite. Fails all the various biography criteria, and has the other problems mentioned above. Verbal chat 08:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does Andrew Wisne not meet WP:GNG? My comment above clearly outlines why he is notable because he is covered by multiple, independent reliable sources. I think I rebutted most of the comments by the preceding voters. Could you explain what problems exist with these sources? Cunard (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel that there aren't multiple, independent, reports that give significant coverage to this person, hence failing the first hurdle of GNG.Verbal chat 11:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two in-depth articles provided by Cunard satisfy the basic criteria section at WP:BIO. Drawn Some (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Didn't make it far enough in football. Hasn't done enough in the field of acting. Marginal BLPs should go. Law_{type! snype?} 12:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change above to keep per the improvements made to the article, thanks to Cunard. I'll add that this is a much better way to go at an AFD than what has went on the first several days of this discussion – a lot more constructive than combatative. MuZemike 18:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject clearly passes the GNG. Multiple reliable sources are cited each that provides non-trivial (if not exhaustive) coverage of the player. Indeed—and this is by no means necessary for satisfaction of the GNG—the style of the references indicates that the authors of the articles assumed that their readers were already familiar with the subject, implying a degree of contemporaneous notability that suggests there are likely many other sources yet to be identified. Bongo matic 12:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another reference from a reliable source that covers the subject well beyond trivially: Norwood, Robyn (December 1, 2002). "Wisne tackles the lively arts ; An ex-Notre Dame nose guard swaps lots of injuries--and more than 100 pounds--for a promising acting career". Chicago Tribune.

Comment I congratulate Cunard on the re-write. Unfortunately, I still consider that (to quote someone here) the 'promising acting career' is not really even that yet. Time and some success might cause me to change my mind. The parts played so far seem a step higher than extra, but that doesn't confer notability. Playing university football may be more important in the USA than it is here - here universities are for people who want to learn, not for those who want to play games. I still say the d word. Peridon (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not see how those two articles (and a real short one) make this person notable. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't—they just make him WP:NOTEable. The GNG is not about notability. Bongo matic 16:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While this isn't unprecidented given the fact we have folks like Roger Ebert and Phil Hendrie who have actively edited their own articles (Hendrie himself told me so via e-mail when I wrote to him via the link on his page), this has almost gone too far. I feel that notability has been established, but at the cost of having this subject ramrodded down our throats like no other autobiography I've ever seen...and I'm writing this from the POV of being a biographer here for a number of famous people. The links are on my user page if anyone's interested. Three of the subjects sre aware of their entries and none of the three have hounded me for updates, additional info, etc. They're simply flattered and humbled to be included. My initial impulse under the circumstances would be to delete and salt the title just because of the trouble this whole affair has caused, but that might be against policy at this point. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability via significant coverage in reliable sources has now been established, regardless of this got here conflict of interest on it's own should not be grounds for deletion. Davewild (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles listed are human sympathy articles, or have you not bothered to read them? They are hardly grounds for notability. If, sometime in the future, someone feels like writing about him for reasons other than his injuries, that would make him notable.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did read them and the motives for them written (so long as they are independent of the subject) are of no consequence. Davewild (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I really don't care which criteria someone can shoehorn him in under, the guy is pretty non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Andrew Wisne[edit]

Because there are a large number of comments from the same user making the discussion difficult to read, I have taken the liberty of moving them to one section, where they can be read and considered by other users without distracting from the rest of the conversation. In order to make the page clear, I've moved the direct responses to those comments as well. Individual !votes are above. Anyone (other than Mr. Wisne) who thinks this isn't a good idea is welcome to revert to the previous version of the discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:18, 25 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.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply His opinion that the information regarding Andy Wisne 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. 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)

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.— Dæ dαlus ^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.— Dæ dαlus ^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.— Dæ dαlus ^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.— Dæ dαlus ^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.— Dæ dαlus ^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.— Dæ dαlus ^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.— Dæ dαlus ^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.— Dæ dαlus ^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.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:44, 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?
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)

Comment If you are the subject of the article you probably shouldn't be the one writing it. See wp:COI Drew Smith What I've done 23:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.— Dæ dαlus ^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)

reply I concur Mr Cunard. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs) 06:59, 25 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]

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]

note Note one or more parties are adjusting mine and others comments trying to manipulate what has written. I have moved mine according tonyb who moved a coment up. This may be an attempt at manipulation- Andrewwisne—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)

reply - No one is trying to manipulate the outcome of this, and, if you bothered to read the edit summary that an admin left, you would see that. I suggest you strike through the above as it is a baseless labeling, and therefore, a personal attack. Nothing is being manipulated. And if you would stop taking offense at everyone who votes delete, you would see that.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply -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)
STRONG POINT One or more people has erased what I took along time writing an defending and changed it around. That is out of bounds andneeds to be addressed

Sorry that I missed the comments you added while I was reformatting. It's quite difficult to keep up when you're adding comments nearly once every minute, all of which make the page impossible to read. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong PointOne or more writers have manipulated the initial format of this debate. I noticed it after my latest entries. Many of my entries were either missing or a comment from one or more of the writer's participating on this page has been moved. I took the time and thought to defend my position and is frusterating for the lack of integrity I am witnessing. It is completely unethical and dishonest. Andrewwisne— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)

Reply - Your strong point is no such thing. It is weak as it cites no evidence, and is a baseless bad-faith accusation, as all of your statements exist quite clearly below.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.