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

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. With apologies to Cunard, the deletes have it. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Michael

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I saw that this was previously nominated for deletion back in 2009, and I'm really not convinced that this article was and is currently notable. I would really like to see another discussion on this subject. Penale52 (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think that simply being the subject of a couple of human interest stories in a newspaper is sufficient to establish notability. The subject knew some notable sports figures, but that doesn't make him notable himself. BRMo (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the significant independent coverage required by GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Paraphrasing from my comments in 2009 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Michael:
The multiple reliable sources provided in the Flickr uploads by Ap3253 (talk · contribs) 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.
Andy Michael's participation in World War II garnered him reliable sources. His memorabilia collection also garnered him sources. His position as a scout for the New York Yankees garnered him sources. The subject's notability is not confined to local notability. This argument doesn't even apply because the major newspaper the Boston Globe is not in Concord, New Hampshire, or even the state of New Hampshire.
There are newspaper articles about the subject published in the 1940s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. This is sustained coverage of a notable figure. Cunard (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The newspaper articles cited from the 1940s are now dead links, but based on how they are referenced in the text, they appear to be WP:ROUTINE—examples of the many newspaper articles during World War II that provided routine updates on the activities of hometown military personnel. There certainly isn't any indication that the subject meets WP:SOLDIER. Similarly, the article from the 2000s, which is also a dead link, appears to be an obituary from a small home town newspaper. Again, that's WP:ROUTINE. Regarding his work as a scout, service as a scout isn't directly addressed by WP:BASEBALL/N. Although scouts can occasionally receive enough coverage to be notable based on GNG (see Scout (sport)#Notable scouts), I don't think the brief mentions of Michaels work as a scout are sufficient. Ultimately, IMO, the case for Michaels' notability comes down to the GNG criteria as applied to his activities as a sports memorabilia collector and the two articles on his activities as a collector, one from the Concord Monitor in 1985 and one from the Boston Globe in 1994. The focus of both articles (especially the one from the Globe), however, is more on his friendship with Joe DiMaggio than on his accomplishments as a collector. These articles seem to be examples of the "brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers," which WP:ROUTINE specifically says are generally not notable. In my opinion, stringing together four of five unrelated ROUTINE articles written over the course of an individual's life is not sufficient to establish notability. BRMo (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2015 (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.