| Revision as of 20:43, 7 June 2013 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,318 editsm Signing comment by 98.215.3.145 - ""← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:47, 9 June 2013 edit undoNiteshift36 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers41,775 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| *'''Comment''': The nom is incorrect to say that the previous AfD had no !votes except the subject and the nom: there was an IP "keep", a "weak keep" from an editor in apparent good standing, a delete from the ], and only a comment from the article subject. Given all the confusion about sockpuppets, I think the results of the previous discussion should be ignored, but equally I didn't want to leave the factual error untouched. —]_] 17:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC) | *'''Comment''': The nom is incorrect to say that the previous AfD had no !votes except the subject and the nom: there was an IP "keep", a "weak keep" from an editor in apparent good standing, a delete from the ], and only a comment from the article subject. Given all the confusion about sockpuppets, I think the results of the previous discussion should be ignored, but equally I didn't want to leave the factual error untouched. —]_] 17:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''': Perhaps someone should take a look at opening SPI on this nominator ]? Highly unusual that this newly registered user's first action is to AfD nominate the all of the same articles as the previous nominator who was found to be using a sockpuppet. Also unusual that this nominator would mention previous SPI against subject of the article since that was closed with no evidence to support the accusation. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | *'''Comment''': Perhaps someone should take a look at opening SPI on this nominator ]? Highly unusual that this newly registered user's first action is to AfD nominate the all of the same articles as the previous nominator who was found to be using a sockpuppet. Also unusual that this nominator would mention previous SPI against subject of the article since that was closed with no evidence to support the accusation. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| :*And all your edits appear to be in defense of the subject. ] (]) 01:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:47, 9 June 2013
Bob Andrews (artist manager)
AfDs for this article:- Bob Andrews (artist manager) (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)
Article does not comply with WP:BLP. No real coverage in media or Google. Notably, User:Highberry is Bob Andrews and the subject of this article so we are looking at an autobiography problem. Subject currently uses User:Bob Andrews UTOW and admitted that Highberry was his account in a sockpuppet investigation. Last AfD was closed procedurally with no votes except nominator and Bob Andrews voting on his own AfD. Relisting to build consensus. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - serious sourcing issues. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete for lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete this article is about me. i want it gone. Bob Andrews UTOW (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've just pointed out to Bob at User talk:Bob Andrews UTOW#Deletion of Bob Andrews (artist manager) that he can have the article speedy-deleted via WP:CSD#G7. —me_and 17:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: The nom is incorrect to say that the previous AfD had no !votes except the subject and the nom: there was an IP "keep", a "weak keep" from an editor in apparent good standing, a delete from the nom's sockpuppet, and only a comment from the article subject. Given all the confusion about sockpuppets, I think the results of the previous discussion should be ignored, but equally I didn't want to leave the factual error untouched. —me_and 17:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Perhaps someone should take a look at opening SPI on this nominator UnrepentantTaco? Highly unusual that this newly registered user's first action is to AfD nominate the all of the same articles as the previous nominator who was found to be using a sockpuppet. Also unusual that this nominator would mention previous SPI against subject of the article since that was closed with no evidence to support the accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.3.145 (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- And all your edits appear to be in defense of the subject. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)