Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Errol Sawyer (4th nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. postdlf (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Errol Sawyer[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Errol Sawyer (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)

Promotional re-creation (again) by an SPA (again) almost identical to the last AFD'd version. Sawyer still doesn't verifiably meet WP:CREATIVE and the article's sourcing remains weak. The subject's most significant credit is a self-published book and the secondary coverage largely amounts to the book's foreword and two paragraphs on a critic's personal website, both of which an editor in a previous DRV suggested were possibly pay-for-praise gigs. The only new addition to the article is a quote (promotional, of course) from an interview done with the World Socialist Website. While it's something, it alone doesn't elevate the subject to notability from 3x-AFD'd non-notability.  Mbinebri  talk ← 14:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Salt - IMHO it does seem somewhat promotional but that aside I can't find any shred of notability, Also It's been recreated 4 times and with each result being delete I think Salting is the best option. –Davey2010Talk 22:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no reason to change the results of the last 3 discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Argument irrelevant to the AFD. Also hatting assumptions of ulterior motives and bad faith on behalf of nominator. Arguments should not be ad hominem. Blackmane (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Mbinebri, you again for the fourth time???? Your endeavors to delete this article of a good photographer starts to look the more and more like like a personal crusade? Why do you disresepect this good African-American artist? You give Wikipedia a bad name! Read: [1]

  1. ^ http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-top-10-reasons-students-cannot-cite-or-rely-on-wikipedia/5432783

7. Individuals with agendas sometimes have significant editing authority. Administrators on Wikipedia have the power to delete or disallow comments or articles they disagree with and support the viewpoints they approve. For example, beginning in 2003, U.K. scientist William Connolley became a Web site administrator and subsequently wrote or rewrote more than 5,000 Wikipedia articles supporting the concept of climate change and global warming. More importantly, he used his authority to ban more than 2,000 contributors with opposing viewpoints from making further contributions.

5. There is little diversity among editors. According to a 2009 survey by the Wikimedia Foundation, 87 percent of Wikipedia editors are male, with an average age of 26.8 years. According to executive director Sue Gardner, they hail mostly from Europe and North America, and many of them are in graduate school.

4. The number of active Wikipedia editors has flatlined. The number of active Wikipedia editors (those who make at least five edits a month) has stopped growing. It remains to be seen whether the current number of active editors can maintain and continue updating Wikipedia.

3. It has become harder for casual participants to contribute. According to the Palo Alto Research Center, the contributions of casual and new contributors are being reversed at a much greater rate than several years ago. The result is that a steady group of high-level editors has more control over Wikipedia than ever.

A group of editors known as “deletionists” are said to “edit first and ask questions later,” making it harder for new contributors to participate, and making it harder for Wikipedia—which, again, aspires to provide “the sum of all human knowledge”—to overcome the issue that it is controlled by a stagnant pool of editors from a limited demographic.

To fill you in: Sawyer is an accomplished artist: Read not only his his last interview on the WSW by Richard Philips, but also read what the ex museum director Julian Spalding writes about him on his own website and read what A. D. Coleman (first photo critic of the New York Times) writes about his work in his book "City" Mosaic and on his own website. Also Sawyer's work is present in several important museum collections around the world which gives already the status of importance that he needs to have an article in Wikipedia. I suggest that you help to improve this article instead of suggest deletion. It is very important that Errol Sawyer, considered as having equal value as the African-American photographer Roy Decarava, has an article in WIki UK as he is a role model for the African-American community. I will ask the advise of more editors as I suspect prejudice from your side. 1027E (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC) — 1027E (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please refrain from implying an editor (myself in this case) has racial motivations—it's uncivil and it didn't get anyone to take your side when you re-created this article the last time. Also, do not WP:CANVAS for support. It's highly inappropriate in an AfD.  Mbinebri  talk ← 14:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the lengthy quotation from this bloke's website, more specifically, from an article that ends by saying that Wikipedia is quite usable after all. ¶ So Sawyer is considered as having equal value as the African-American photographer Roy Decarava. That's praise indeed! Please add it to the article, with a source. -- Hoary (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It might have initially been constructed by "Fred Bakker," but as your link shows, all the subsequent editing is 1027E, who has already graced us with their opinion.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article was created a month ago, only relatively minor edits have been made, so I'm not really sure what there is to wait for, especially since the few years since the last AfD hasn't produced much either.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the page User:Fred Bakker (deletion likely to be imminent) is curiously similar to that of User:Wgreter (sorry, deleted and therefore for admins only). There was User:Decker4/Errol_Sawyer as well. Errol Sawyer has popped up all over the place. I wonder how many other examples there may have been in WP. Hello, what's this? User:Example user him/her/it/themself! -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD is not really the place to discuss such things, however there is WP:SPI which is designed exactly for that purpose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe the article's history has tainted the discussion. This is highly understandable and a part of me would agree with "delete due to repeated bad behavior". However, I do believe the subject is actually notable, at least now (likely not at the time of previous AfDs, the most recent of which was June 2013). At minimum, there certainly is a difference between now and previous AfDs, despite assertions to the contrary. The World Socialist Web Site [article published in December is both extensive and biographical. While I wouldn't be trusted the WSWS for opinions on economics, it is undoubtable reliable in the general sense as it has an extensive editorial staff and is backed by a major organization. So, that source does confer notability. The PF Magazine coverage is not currently accessible (will try to track in down elsewhere later), so I can't say for certain it is extensive, but it should be reliable as it appears to a print magazine in business since 1986. The coverage by notable art critic Julian Spalding is also meaningful. There are also numerous sources that credit him with discovering Christie Brinkley. All-in-all I feel notability is established. If the article is kept, I promise to personally clean it up promotionalism and unverifiable material. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @MatthewVanitas: who accepted the article at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I have had a good look around for sources but not really found enough that will really make the article stick. He's obviously had a long and successful track record in photography, but most of it seems to be in the background, peripherally being involved in local events. There's that World Socialist Web Site article, yeah, and this Hull Daily Mail Source credits him with being involved in launching Christie Brinkley's career, and there's a smattering of "Photograph by Errol Sawyer" in footnotes of some book sources, but that's it. The world at large seems to have passed over him, which is just the way it goes sometimes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I conducted several searches. Several newspaper articles by independent third parties either mention or discuss the life of photographer Errol Sawyer. For those voting delete, I wonder if you would change your minds based on the evidence? Incidentally, none of these sources are currently in the article. One article, published in Dutch by the Amsterdam-based daily newspaper Het Parool entitled "'Amsterdammers en New Yorkers lijken op elkaar' [Amsterdammers and New Yorkers are alike]" (JOS BLOEMKOLK, 23 February 2011, pg. 10) discusses the life and career of Errol Sawyer. A lot of what is currently in the article can be sourced to this Dutch-language newspaper article of Sawyer's life. Six other English-language newspaper articles published by the Daily Mail (London), Lowell Sun (Massachussetts), Express Online, The Express, The Independent (London), and Sunday Independent (Ireland) note that supermodel Christie Brinkley was discovered by Errol Sawyer in a post office in Paris in 1973, thus launching her modeling career. Further, a few German-language newspaper articles published by Frankfurter Rundschau repeatedly discuss a provocative exhibit by Errol Sawyer held in Frankfurt entitled "Poverty" in June 2003. It was an exhibit of homeless and poor people taken from the cities of New York, Amsterdam, and Paris where Sawyer worked. One German-language article in particular entitled "Vom fetten Teil der Kugel; "Armut" in Fotos, Text und Video: Vera Bourgeois und Errol Sawyer im Forum des Dominikanerklosters [From the fat part of the ball; "Poverty" in photos, text and video: Vera Bourgeois and Errol Sawyer in the forum of the Dominican monastery]" by photography critic / journalist Florian Malzacher (1 July 2003, pg. 12) discusses what Sawyer's work means for the photography profession. The question is: Does notability for the English-language Wikipedia rely on English-language reliable sources only or do foreign language reliable sources count, too? If the former, I can see how this might be a problem. If the latter, it's unclear why we should vote to delete the article. Oddexit (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does notability for the English-language Wikipedia rely on English-language reliable sources only Certainly not. [O]r do foreign language reliable sources count, too? Of course they do. -- Hoary (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless of other considerations, he has works in mayor museums. The BN ones & the Houston MFA ones at the least are documented. I consider that sufficient for any artist. This was ignored at the last AfD, but its the basic criterion. (And as for other refs, of course German language sources are as good as English) I point out , btw, that accepted at AfDC does not mean endorsing the article, it is just an opinion that the article will probably be kept at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why is this even an argument? The fact that it was AfD'd 3X before is not a good policy-based argument and thus should be ignored. However, the fact that he has his work in multiple museums is clearly enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. And as always we don't delete an article because sources haven't been added yet, only if they do not exist. Which as you can see from multiple comments above mine, that there are plenty of sources, and reliable sources proving that his works are in multiple museums. If we are basing this AfD purely on policy, then the only option is to keep it. Regardless of history, or editors who clearly do not get along. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article shouldn't exist now: we should instead be discussing the need for it at WP:DELREV. But if we were discussing it there, I'd argue for undeleting and improving. He's a photographer of some note, and sources exist to back up this claim. -- Hoary (talk) 08:05, 28 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Errol_Sawyer_(4th_nomination)&oldid=1081088372"