Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristhian Andrews

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cristhian Andrews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

low Notability, low Verifiability, not Neutral Point of View. Overstatement and non-subject specific information. Claims lack citations and citation links do not mention subject of article. Zigmundbratwurst (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note this AfD was not correctly created/transcluded by the above user on June 20; I have fixed it (without stating any opinion on the issue). Kraxler (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is going to take some serious time to study. It seems to have been created by PR firms, it's hugely wp:promo, and a large number of the cites have nothing to do with him. It will have to be greatly cut down and each cite needs to be investigated to see if it actually provides information about him. For example, #23 is about him, but #24-26 are not. So until this is cleaned up, it's hard to judge. I suspect it's a keeper, but it needs to be taken out of the hands of his PR people and turned into an encyclopedic article. LaMona (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The only accomplishment that may merit notability is the seemingly prolific list of compositions written for feature films. Nothing else listed (assuming it's all true, which would be a questionable assumption given the gross overstatements (humanitarian, signature handheld camera work, etc.) and lack of citations. None of the feature films listed are notable and the only verification of the subject's work is IMDB.com — a tertiary source with no links to primary and/or secondary sources. Zigmundbratwurst (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as non-notable and, as per @LaMona, largely promotional in nature. Quis separabit? 13:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Outside a single piece only marginally about him he lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. None of his awards are major. Article is built by a series of tagteaming SPAs and so heavily padded with excessive sources (some "Fictitious references") that's it's cleary a pure advert duffbeerforme (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This... is why you should not hire people to write articles for you. This article is so overwhelmingly promotional that I'm tempted to vote delete just to TNT this since it's pretty unambiguously promotional. However I am finding some assertions of notability here and there, so I'm going to try to do a save. One of my first goals is to try to remove any of the sources that do not specifically mention Andrews. A tip for the marketing people involved with the page: please do not include sources that do not mention your client. These won't show that your client's role in the piece is notable because generally speaking, if he was a key role then he'd be mentioned. If he's not mentioned then that works against him rather than for him - especially if you bombard the article with a ton of sources that do not directly mention him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've cleaned the article. Any editors interested in seeing its original version can see it with this edit. I've left only the sources that actually mention him and could maybe give some sort of notability. The only exception to this are the three primary sources that link to the film festival and the dance theater's website. Neither of these can give notability since film festival showings are considered to be routine (ie, if you create a film it's expected that you'll try to show it somewhere if you're even remotely interested in progressing as a filmmaker) and because the film was only nominated and did not win the award. I'll see if I can find anything else. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Black Moses. Right now I can't really find where Andrews has done enough to really be able to assert notability. He has these two news stories about a film he's worked on (Najmia), but neither of those would really be enough to hold up notability on its own. He has worked with the film The Black Moses, but I haven't really seen anything that really focuses on him specifically and The Black Moses only barely passes NFILM itself. I think that at this point in time this can redirect to The Black Moses and if/when he gains further coverage, this can un-redirect at that point in time. Right now the guy just doesn't pass the notability guidelines for performers/artists. It seems like there should be more out for him given the grandiose claims in the prior version of the article paired with the IMDb profile claims, but right now it just isn't out there. I have no problem with someone sending a copy to AfC, but I don't think that this should be moved to the mainspace without the explicit consent of the closing admin, given the very obvious COI editors involved. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not sure the scrubbing addresses notability concerns. Almost all of the short and feature films and television shows listed in the "Filmography" section are only present in IMDB's database, which suggests low notability. Further, performing once at the White House is not a sign of notability; there are events at the White House everyday. The Off-Broadway direction and work on the two dance pieces are not notable either. The same possibly goes for "Black Moses." I do think the scrubbing was a good save attempt. But it now reads like an IMDB page — not an encyclopedic one. Zigmundbratwurst (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subject clearly does not meet the notability guidelines, and so I'd be tempted to compromise by suggesting a redirect to the film. However, given the level of apparent paid-for editing involved in these articles, the number of SPAs and the walled garden attempt, I'd say just delete and wait until he actually meets our inclusion guidelines and someone not connected to or paid by the subject creates the article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:55, 15 July 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.