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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)reply
A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sourcing is in passing, routine notices and / or
WP:SPIP. Fails
WP:BASIC /
WP:ENT.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 01:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Strongly oppose: Hugely notable artist. Instead of deleting the information, try to improve with more reliable sources.
werldwayd (
talk) 01:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
There have to be reliable sources to improve it with before "instead of deleting the information, try to improve with more reliable sources" is the magic word.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. The references here are
primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence, not
reliable source coverage about him. And it's not enough to just say SOFIXIT, because anybody can simply say that about any topic — saving a badly sourced article does not hinge on simply theorizing that maybe better sources might exist, it hinges on showing hard evidence that better sources definitely do exist. So I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can actually show a better quality of sourcing than my searches have been able to find — but it's not enough to just say that the sourcing needs to be improved if you don't show any actual evidence that the sourcing can be improved.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:02, 21 March 2019 (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.
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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)reply
A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sourcing is in passing, routine notices and / or
WP:SPIP. Fails
WP:BASIC /
WP:ENT.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 01:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Strongly oppose: Hugely notable artist. Instead of deleting the information, try to improve with more reliable sources.
werldwayd (
talk) 01:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
There have to be reliable sources to improve it with before "instead of deleting the information, try to improve with more reliable sources" is the magic word.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. The references here are
primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence, not
reliable source coverage about him. And it's not enough to just say SOFIXIT, because anybody can simply say that about any topic — saving a badly sourced article does not hinge on simply theorizing that maybe better sources might exist, it hinges on showing hard evidence that better sources definitely do exist. So I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can actually show a better quality of sourcing than my searches have been able to find — but it's not enough to just say that the sourcing needs to be improved if you don't show any actual evidence that the sourcing can be improved.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:02, 21 March 2019 (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.