Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Errol Sawyer (3rd 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. L Faraone 01:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Errol Sawyer

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

Was deleted at AFD but recreated via AFC, then G4. Opinion in a DRV was split about endorsing the close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 June 1 with arguments about promotional language and concern over the validity of new sourcing being expressed.As the DRV was closed as relist. As the closer of the DRV, I am neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another promotional re-creation by another SPA. Sawyer still doesn't verifiably meet WP:CREATIVE and the article's sourcing remains weak. The SPA argued for re-creation based on a book/collection and (for the first time) in-depth coverage, but the book had to be self-published and the coverage amounts to the book's foreword and two paragraphs on a critic's personal website, both of which one editor (apparently with some experience in these matters) in the DRV suggested were possibly pay-for-praise gigs. None of this proves notability to me. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 03:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can not see how the subject notable and the author has failed to address the issues with sources. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - from my perspective, the article would need a lot more by way of reliable sources to substantiate the notability of the subject. I've had a look online and couldn't find much that would help the cause. Using Facebook and blogs is a bad start, but a significant amount of the article is sourced to the subject's own self-published book and website. There's a few things by him, but not a lot about him. Not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST in my view. Stalwart111 09:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the article's history and the behaviour of the article creator at the recent DRV, it's impossible to see this as anything other than an attempt at advertising/self-promotion from someone who clearly has a conflict of interest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep As I said previously, the presence of the work in the V&A meets the requirement for creative, along with the other sources, altho it is borderline. As I've said before, I have tried to help with this article , and I wish there were more to be found. DGG ( talk ) 06:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect for DGG's admirable attempts to help, I don't think those sources suffice as the basis for a BLP.—S Marshall T/C 07:55, 10 June 2013 (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.