Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Eiden

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. ✗plicit 12:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Eiden

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't pass

WP:GNG

.

His biggest acting role is in a sitcom that was cancelled for low ratings after one season. I find news articles that mention him as an audiobook narrator, but mostly just as the line "narrated by Andrew Eiden". asilvering (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, and California. asilvering (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This biographical article fails
WP:BEFORE search also only found trivial mentions, 1, 2, 3. VickKiang (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete His "extended family" has more sources for GNG than he does. Audiobook narration is not notable unless he wins an award of some sort. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: While I think there may be difficulty in making out
WP:GNG. I had a few newspaper articles clipped (here, here and here), and I came across this at Google Books. There are further articles at newspapers.com too, which may also be of assistance. It's not brilliant, but it's a start. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:GNG, but given we almost always disagree let's respectfully disagree here too. Oaktree b, asilvering, do you think those sources are adequate and would result in you changing your vote? VickKiang (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This seems like a delete so far, but since possible sources were brought forward on the last day, I'm giving it a relist to allow more reaction time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with the analysis of VickKiang here. An independent search for sources from me has resulted in me being unable to find anything useable, and the sources provided above are in my view not notability establishing. —Sirdog (talk) 07:11, 18 November 2022 (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.