Errol Sawyer – Opinion is roughly equally split here but custom at DRV is to refer content back to AFD is there is a doubt. Relisted. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Errol Sawyer (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Without any valid reason my article has been deleted. The editor in question noticed that the article had been deleted in 2009. That is all and that he says is the reason for his deletion. But the article I wrote has solid references and there has occurred a lot in the life of the photographer Errol Sawyer. His photo book 'City Mosaic' was published. A. D. Coleman, first photo critic of the New York Times, wrote about this book: 'It comprises close to four decades’ worth of engagement with the classic mode of mainstream-modernist street photography. — Consistent in quality, in terms of both craft and content, it speaks in its own voice, aware of the tradition on which it builds but not noticeably beholden to any predecessor therein.' Julian Spalding, English critic and former museum director, wrote the following review about Sawyer's work in 2012: 'Errol Sawyer is that rare thing today – a classical black and white photographer in the Henri Cartier-Bresson tradition, using the camera at its simplest and most challenging, as a trap for catching time. Looking at his pictures, I feel more fully in tune with living today, and my guess is that people in the future will continue to look at them, and by doing so, get a glimpse of what it was really like to be alive today.' On top of that the pictures of Errol Sawyer are present in many museum collections. It is very important to put the article back in wikipedia. Thank you for your accurate reading and objective review. Fred Bokker (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Note: article temporarily restored for DRV. The recently-deleted version is here; the version deleted at AfD in 2009 is here. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] DRV doesn't usually endorse g4s of four-year-old afds. On the other hand, bringing an article back from userfication a second time incorporating essentially all of the text of the deleted version isn't likely to win you much sympathy. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Endorse: The deletion was a valid G4 speedy, on my nomination as an editor with extensive experience with the prior AfD'd versions of the article and their intensely COI-driven, ever-name-changing editor. As the closing admin also explained: "The 2013 article is the same as the 2009 article, with the addition of the new book. The references are not reliable sources and Mr. Sawyer still does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE, the applicable notability guidelines." Fred Bokker's argument for re-creation rests on Sawyer having a book published... by himself via the "Errol Sawyer Foundation." And yes, this A.D. Coleman wrote about the book - he's the author of the book's forward, after all. Neither establishes notability/meets WP:CREATIVE. In other words, the reasons for the article's deletion (twice via AfD) have still not been met and likely won't be, even with continued editing. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 21:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] 'In other words, the reasons for the article's deletion (twice via AfD) have still not been met (not true) and likely won't be (blatant prejudice), even with continued editing. ,ie., Mr Sawyer “..likely won’t…" receive recognition for his work up until today nor in the future (?)' Thank you for informing me, Mbinebri. Errol Sawyer qualifies for the following tags. Any Biography: WP:ANYBIO: 1. 1. Errol Sawyer received a grant from Stichting Sem Presser Archief, Amsterdam, Holland, for the publication of the book City Mosaic: http://www.sempresser.nl/stichting/projecten.html: Creative Professionals: WP: CREATIVE Sawyer’s work is represented in several notable collections of galleries or museums: La Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, France, 1974 and 2001. 37 pictures. Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, Harlem, New York, 1997. 40 pictures. Eric Franck Gallery, London, England, 1997. 21 pictures. Fadi Zahar, La Chambre Claire Gallery, Paris, France, 2000. 4 pictures. Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, Texas, 2004. 2 pictures of the 'Manfred Heiting Collection.' Tate Britain, London, England, 2012. 6 pictures of the 'London Collection' of Eric and Louise Franck. Quotation of Julian Spalding, English critic and former museum director http://www.julianspalding.net/JS/Errol_Sawyer.html: Immediately, when I saw Errol Sawyer’s photographs, I was surprised by their compositional completeness - which lifts them out of time, and gives one the feeling that they are held forever (that ‘hold it’ moment) – and by their utter naturalness – that gives one the impression that life is flowing through them and nothing in them is forced, arranged for show, or in any way artificial. Their authority as artistic expressions lies in this confluence. Errol Sawyer is that rare thing today – a classical black and white photographer in the Henri Cartier-Bresson tradition, using the camera at its simplest and most challenging, as a trap for catching time. Looking at his pictures, I feel more fully in tune with living today, and my guess is that people in the future will continue to look at them, and by doing so, get a glimpse of what it was really like to be alive today. I am looking forward to see an honest review by the Wikipedia editors. Fred Bokker (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment: You appear to be misconstruing the purpose of a DRV. This discussion is to determine whether it was appropriate to delete the article under the G4 speedy deletion criteria - i.e., whether the article was substantially a copy of an article previously deleted via AfD. We're not here to rehash the old AfDs because you're still unhappy with their outcomes. Please keep your arguments to what new content/sourcing justifies the re-creation of the article. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 02:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] It is not about your ego or my ego but about the importance of an article of Errol Sawyer that can be read in English. Let's overcome prejudice and take an objective look at the article to see how it can be approved instead of excluding it forever, as you say. (which is blatant prejudice) A lot of editors don't know about notability tags. I am sure that the editor of A. D. Coleman's did not know either because he is a widely known and respected critic: the first photo critic of the New York Times. How can I tag WP:ANYBIO and WP: CREATIVE in my article of Errol Sawyer? That would be a big help. Fred Bokker (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Speedy deletion by WP:CSD#G4 is against policy for "pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". I had to read the two versions for quite a way before I found substantial differences. Julian Spalding's view on Sawyer is quoted and this is worthy of consideration. Sawyer self-published the book City Mosaic in which A. D. Coleman gave his opinion. I am not suggesting these changes establish notability. I am saying the versions are not "substantially identical". The deleting admin applied criteria[1] which would be appropriate for an AFD discussion but not for a speedy deletion precluding AFD discussion. Thincat (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] It's basically an advert, though, isn't it? I'm very anti-speedy deletion when we're dealing with a good faith attempt to add content to Wikipedia. But this isn't it. It's a transparent attempt to use Wikipedia to raise the profile of an artist nobody else has noticed, and to divert traffic to his website, made by an account created for that purpose. G4 may not have strictly applied but I don't see this as a good use of our volunteers' time at AfD. I'll go with overturn G4 to G11 and re-delete.—S Marshall T/C 12:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Overturn G4 more or less per Thincat. The AFD nominator's argument began "No photography books published", and now there is one. Ordinarily I'd be leery about a book whose publisher is so closely associated with the subject, but the essay by a notable critic without any identified COI far outweighs that concern, especially in the G4 context. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Substance or Form? Are we talking about substance or form here? It is proved that Errol Sawyer is an established artist and qualifies for an article considering his book, the collections etc. Instead of a speedy deletion I had expected the help of wiki editors to make a better article: a Wiki worthy approach. Which editor can me help me now to improve this article so it will meet the demands? How can I get the tags WP:ANYBIO and WP: CREATIVE? The difference with the former article is the publication of the photo book City Mosaic and a lot more links and references: Who is Who in Art since 1899: https://cgi.marquiswhoswho.com/OnDemand/Default.aspx?last_name=sawyer&first_name=errol Auer Fondation Encyclopedia: http://auer01.auerphoto.com/en/ency/view/23j24swv#page=tab1 Book City Mosaic is published with a grant of the Stichting Sem Presser Archive: http://www.sempresser.nl/stichting/projecten.html Distributors of the book: http://www.ideabooks.nl/index.php?op=full&title=26274&what=n&r=4&p=&k=&g=01&page=2, http://www.bol.com/nl/p/city-mosaic/1001004011182398/, http://www.prleap.com/pr/169104, http://www.anartistbooks.com/detail.php?bookID=ErSaEr85, http://www.worldcat.org/title/errol-sawyer-city-mosaic/oclc/747717685/ A. D. Coleman: http://www.nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/photocritic/about-a-d-coleman/adc-in-print-and-pixels/recent-publications/ Sawyer's portrait of Beauford Delaney: http://lesamisdebeauforddelaney.blogspot.nl/2012/09/errol-sawyers-photographic-portrait-of.html, http://entreetoblackparis.blogspot.nl/2012/09/errol-sawyer-photographer.html VLAK magazine: http://vlakmagazine.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/vlak-3-arrives-14-may/ Julian Spalding, critic and former museum director: http://www.julianspalding.net/JS/Welcome.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Spalding And there are many more links and references. Let me keep the faith in Wikipedia as an objective medium with helpful editors. Fred Bokker (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. We could chat all day about whether it should be deleted as G4 or G11, but opening such a debate would be totally pointless when the article will ultimately be deleted anyway. Running a debate about which deletion criterion best applies wouldn't actually benefit anyone as the end result is the same. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Overturn but it would be a good candidate for G11. Despite the verbosity of Fred Bokker, the intention of the article is clearly promotional and it would appear (despite it still being early) that the consensus is not favourable for a keep outcome. Mkdw ^talk 05:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment (I am sticking by my "overturn" above). I concede G11 is a better bet. The criterion as documented, "Pages that are exclusively promotional", isn't met but even I would be happy to slip in a "substantially". The lead isn't promotional at all and Early life, while it needs to be shorn of stuff like "absorbed the spirit of the Sixties", is mostly OK. But as things go on more and more needs rewriting, or probably removing. However, the WP:CSD#G11 "fundamentally rewritten" requirement is an additional requirement, not an alternative one, to "... exclusively ...". So, G11 would also break policy but I am not finding myself very upset at the prospect. Thincat (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Weak endorse I'm not convinced that Julian Spalding is an independent source, but I do know that Spalding's Wikipedia article is itself promotional and includes a lot of text taken directly from Spalding's web site. Spalding's review is self-published, and looking at Spalding's site, and with some familiarity with the art review publishing racket, there's no reason to think that it's been through an editorial process, and it's reasonable to wonder if the review was done for pay. A. D. Coleman's quote is, according to the current article, from Spaulding's book, but such an inclusion would usually be a paid gig, and not considered an independent source for demonstrating notability. The "new sources" here are not going to be considered reliable at AfD, and in evaluating a G4 vis-a-vis a deletion on WP:BASIC grounds, there is nothing that I've seen in this discussion that strikes me as changing someone's mind at AfD about whether this meets BASIC. Given how I interpret G4, I must endorse. Normally, I'd temper my view given the age of the AfD, but here that's mitigated by the problems with the material we've seen so far, a concern which is, in my view, fair game for some latitude in closer discretion. However, if this is to be restored, I'd suggest taking it to AfD once more. Either new sources are found which make the grade, and a more objective, neutral piece can be written from them, or they won't. Either way, we'll reach a quicker, and more importantly, more correct, conclusion. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] What is the aim of Wikipedia? To inform people. It is an objective encyclopedia on the Internet. You can see every article as a promotion piece and what we have is not a serious discussion, based on the facts (as Errol Sawyer is an established artist and should be in Wikipedia), but an endless discussion based on prejudice because the article has been deleted before. Which person can I ask to intervene or to judge the way this discussion is going? There must be another organ/board within Wikipedia that is overseeing this kind of talk an behavior. Fred Bokker (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] There isn't really. The best advice I can give you is to locate additional sources: newspaper articles or books (rather than blogs). I found references to Mr Sawyer in the Boston Globe, the Daily Mail, the Irish Independent, on TMZ and on Oprah.com, but these are all passing mentions of his having "discovered" Christie Brinkley (though Oprah.com also has a brief mention of City Mosaic). Unfortunately, Google News does not work as well as it used to, and there may be other press articles I have missed. There are also a few photography credits to be found in Google Books, but what you really need is a feature in a newspaper or magazine focusing on his photography work, or a few paragraphs in a book. The closest I have found is a French source, reporting on an exhibition of his work; this French source may be good as well – it seems to be an article on his photography – but unfortunately, Google only shows me the first couple of lines of the article. Here is another article that seems to be specifically about him, but again, I can only see a small part of it. Here is another French source announcing an exhibition of his work. Have there been articles in the Dutch press? Foreign-language sources are perfectly fine for the English Wikipedia. Basically, one or two good sources covering Mr Sawyer would swing this. Good luck. Andreas JN 466 04:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist at AfD. when there is reasonable doubt, a speedy is inappropriate. I see people arguing the merits of the underlying aerticle in good faith, and the place to do it is at AfD. That will settle the issue one way or another. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Appears to be a vaild delete decision. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Errol Sawyer – Opinion is roughly equally split here but custom at DRV is to refer content back to AFD is there is a doubt. Relisted. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Without any valid reason my article has been deleted. The editor in question noticed that the article had been deleted in 2009. That is all and that he says is the reason for his deletion. But the article I wrote has solid references and there has occurred a lot in the life of the photographer Errol Sawyer. His photo book 'City Mosaic' was published. A. D. Coleman, first photo critic of the New York Times, wrote about this book: 'It comprises close to four decades’ worth of engagement with the classic mode of mainstream-modernist street photography. — Consistent in quality, in terms of both craft and content, it speaks in its own voice, aware of the tradition on which it builds but not noticeably beholden to any predecessor therein.' Julian Spalding, English critic and former museum director, wrote the following review about Sawyer's work in 2012: 'Errol Sawyer is that rare thing today – a classical black and white photographer in the Henri Cartier-Bresson tradition, using the camera at its simplest and most challenging, as a trap for catching time. Looking at his pictures, I feel more fully in tune with living today, and my guess is that people in the future will continue to look at them, and by doing so, get a glimpse of what it was really like to be alive today.' On top of that the pictures of Errol Sawyer are present in many museum collections. It is very important to put the article back in wikipedia. Thank you for your accurate reading and objective review. Fred Bokker (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: article temporarily restored for DRV. The recently-deleted version is here; the version deleted at AfD in 2009 is here. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DRV doesn't usually endorse g4s of four-year-old afds. On the other hand, bringing an article back from userfication a second time incorporating essentially all of the text of the deleted version isn't likely to win you much sympathy. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: The deletion was a valid G4 speedy, on my nomination as an editor with extensive experience with the prior AfD'd versions of the article and their intensely COI-driven, ever-name-changing editor. As the closing admin also explained: "The 2013 article is the same as the 2009 article, with the addition of the new book. The references are not reliable sources and Mr. Sawyer still does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE, the applicable notability guidelines." Fred Bokker's argument for re-creation rests on Sawyer having a book published... by himself via the "Errol Sawyer Foundation." And yes, this A.D. Coleman wrote about the book - he's the author of the book's forward, after all. Neither establishes notability/meets WP:CREATIVE. In other words, the reasons for the article's deletion (twice via AfD) have still not been met and likely won't be, even with continued editing. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 21:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'In other words, the reasons for the article's deletion (twice via AfD) have still not been met (not true) and likely won't be (blatant prejudice), even with continued editing. ,ie., Mr Sawyer “..likely won’t…" receive recognition for his work up until today nor in the future (?)'

Thank you for informing me, Mbinebri. Errol Sawyer qualifies for the following tags.

Any Biography: WP:ANYBIO:

1. 1. Errol Sawyer received a grant from Stichting Sem Presser Archief, Amsterdam, Holland, for the publication of the book City Mosaic: http://www.sempresser.nl/stichting/projecten.html:

Creative Professionals: WP: CREATIVE

Sawyer’s work is represented in several notable collections of galleries or museums:

La Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, France, 1974 and 2001. 37 pictures.
Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, Harlem, New York, 1997. 40 pictures.
Eric Franck Gallery, London, England, 1997. 21 pictures.
Fadi Zahar, La Chambre Claire Gallery, Paris, France, 2000. 4 pictures.
Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, Texas, 2004. 2 pictures of the 'Manfred Heiting Collection.'
Tate Britain, London, England, 2012. 6 pictures of the 'London Collection' of Eric and Louise Franck.

Quotation of Julian Spalding, English critic and former museum director http://www.julianspalding.net/JS/Errol_Sawyer.html:

Immediately, when I saw Errol Sawyer’s photographs, I was surprised by their compositional completeness - which lifts them out of time, and gives one the feeling that they are held forever (that ‘hold it’ moment) – and by their utter naturalness – that gives one the impression that life is flowing through them and nothing in them is forced, arranged for show, or in any way artificial. Their authority as artistic expressions lies in this confluence. Errol Sawyer is that rare thing today – a classical black and white photographer in the Henri Cartier-Bresson tradition, using the camera at its simplest and most challenging, as a trap for catching time. Looking at his pictures, I feel more fully in tune with living today, and my guess is that people in the future will continue to look at them, and by doing so, get a glimpse of what it was really like to be alive today.

I am looking forward to see an honest review by the Wikipedia editors. Fred Bokker (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You appear to be misconstruing the purpose of a DRV. This discussion is to determine whether it was appropriate to delete the article under the G4 speedy deletion criteria - i.e., whether the article was substantially a copy of an article previously deleted via AfD. We're not here to rehash the old AfDs because you're still unhappy with their outcomes. Please keep your arguments to what new content/sourcing justifies the re-creation of the article. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 02:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about your ego or my ego but about the importance of an article of Errol Sawyer that can be read in English. Let's overcome prejudice and take an objective look at the article to see how it can be approved instead of excluding it forever, as you say. (which is blatant prejudice)
A lot of editors don't know about notability tags. I am sure that the editor of A. D. Coleman's did not know either because he is a widely known and respected critic: the first photo critic of the New York Times.
How can I tag WP:ANYBIO and WP: CREATIVE in my article of Errol Sawyer? That would be a big help. Fred Bokker (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Speedy deletion by WP:CSD#G4 is against policy for "pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". I had to read the two versions for quite a way before I found substantial differences. Julian Spalding's view on Sawyer is quoted and this is worthy of consideration. Sawyer self-published the book City Mosaic in which A. D. Coleman gave his opinion. I am not suggesting these changes establish notability. I am saying the versions are not "substantially identical". The deleting admin applied criteria[1] which would be appropriate for an AFD discussion but not for a speedy deletion precluding AFD discussion. Thincat (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's basically an advert, though, isn't it?
I'm very anti-speedy deletion when we're dealing with a good faith attempt to add content to Wikipedia. But this isn't it. It's a transparent attempt to use Wikipedia to raise the profile of an artist nobody else has noticed, and to divert traffic to his website, made by an account created for that purpose. G4 may not have strictly applied but I don't see this as a good use of our volunteers' time at AfD. I'll go with overturn G4 to G11 and re-delete.—S Marshall T/C 12:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 more or less per Thincat. The AFD nominator's argument began "No photography books published", and now there is one. Ordinarily I'd be leery about a book whose publisher is so closely associated with the subject, but the essay by a notable critic without any identified COI far outweighs that concern, especially in the G4 context. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Substance or Form?
Are we talking about substance or form here?
It is proved that Errol Sawyer is an established artist and qualifies for an article considering his book, the collections etc.
Instead of a speedy deletion I had expected the help of wiki editors to make a better article: a Wiki worthy approach.
Which editor can me help me now to improve this article so it will meet the demands?
How can I get the tags WP:ANYBIO and WP: CREATIVE?
The difference with the former article is the publication of the photo book City Mosaic and a lot more links and references:
Who is Who in Art since 1899: https://cgi.marquiswhoswho.com/OnDemand/Default.aspx?last_name=sawyer&first_name=errol
Auer Fondation Encyclopedia: http://auer01.auerphoto.com/en/ency/view/23j24swv#page=tab1
Book City Mosaic is published with a grant of the Stichting Sem Presser Archive: http://www.sempresser.nl/stichting/projecten.html
Distributors of the book: http://www.ideabooks.nl/index.php?op=full&title=26274&what=n&r=4&p=&k=&g=01&page=2, http://www.bol.com/nl/p/city-mosaic/1001004011182398/, http://www.prleap.com/pr/169104, http://www.anartistbooks.com/detail.php?bookID=ErSaEr85, http://www.worldcat.org/title/errol-sawyer-city-mosaic/oclc/747717685/
A. D. Coleman: http://www.nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/photocritic/about-a-d-coleman/adc-in-print-and-pixels/recent-publications/
Sawyer's portrait of Beauford Delaney: http://lesamisdebeauforddelaney.blogspot.nl/2012/09/errol-sawyers-photographic-portrait-of.html, http://entreetoblackparis.blogspot.nl/2012/09/errol-sawyer-photographer.html
VLAK magazine: http://vlakmagazine.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/vlak-3-arrives-14-may/
Julian Spalding, critic and former museum director: http://www.julianspalding.net/JS/Welcome.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Spalding
And there are many more links and references.
Let me keep the faith in Wikipedia as an objective medium with helpful editors. Fred Bokker (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. We could chat all day about whether it should be deleted as G4 or G11, but opening such a debate would be totally pointless when the article will ultimately be deleted anyway. Running a debate about which deletion criterion best applies wouldn't actually benefit anyone as the end result is the same. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn but it would be a good candidate for G11. Despite the verbosity of Fred Bokker, the intention of the article is clearly promotional and it would appear (despite it still being early) that the consensus is not favourable for a keep outcome. Mkdw ^talk 05:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I am sticking by my "overturn" above). I concede G11 is a better bet. The criterion as documented, "Pages that are exclusively promotional", isn't met but even I would be happy to slip in a "substantially". The lead isn't promotional at all and Early life, while it needs to be shorn of stuff like "absorbed the spirit of the Sixties", is mostly OK. But as things go on more and more needs rewriting, or probably removing. However, the WP:CSD#G11 "fundamentally rewritten" requirement is an additional requirement, not an alternative one, to "... exclusively ...". So, G11 would also break policy but I am not finding myself very upset at the prospect. Thincat (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse I'm not convinced that Julian Spalding is an independent source, but I do know that Spalding's Wikipedia article is itself promotional and includes a lot of text taken directly from Spalding's web site. Spalding's review is self-published, and looking at Spalding's site, and with some familiarity with the art review publishing racket, there's no reason to think that it's been through an editorial process, and it's reasonable to wonder if the review was done for pay. A. D. Coleman's quote is, according to the current article, from Spaulding's book, but such an inclusion would usually be a paid gig, and not considered an independent source for demonstrating notability. The "new sources" here are not going to be considered reliable at AfD, and in evaluating a G4 vis-a-vis a deletion on WP:BASIC grounds, there is nothing that I've seen in this discussion that strikes me as changing someone's mind at AfD about whether this meets BASIC. Given how I interpret G4, I must endorse. Normally, I'd temper my view given the age of the AfD, but here that's mitigated by the problems with the material we've seen so far, a concern which is, in my view, fair game for some latitude in closer discretion. However, if this is to be restored, I'd suggest taking it to AfD once more. Either new sources are found which make the grade, and a more objective, neutral piece can be written from them, or they won't. Either way, we'll reach a quicker, and more importantly, more correct, conclusion. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the aim of Wikipedia? To inform people.
It is an objective encyclopedia on the Internet.
You can see every article as a promotion piece and what we have is not a serious discussion, based on the facts (as Errol Sawyer is an established artist and should be in Wikipedia), but an endless discussion based on prejudice because the article has been deleted before.
Which person can I ask to intervene or to judge the way this discussion is going?

There must be another organ/board within Wikipedia that is overseeing this kind of talk an behavior.
Fred Bokker (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really. The best advice I can give you is to locate additional sources: newspaper articles or books (rather than blogs). I found references to Mr Sawyer in the Boston Globe, the Daily Mail, the Irish Independent, on TMZ and on Oprah.com, but these are all passing mentions of his having "discovered" Christie Brinkley (though Oprah.com also has a brief mention of City Mosaic). Unfortunately, Google News does not work as well as it used to, and there may be other press articles I have missed. There are also a few photography credits to be found in Google Books, but what you really need is a feature in a newspaper or magazine focusing on his photography work, or a few paragraphs in a book. The closest I have found is a French source, reporting on an exhibition of his work; this French source may be good as well – it seems to be an article on his photography – but unfortunately, Google only shows me the first couple of lines of the article. Here is another article that seems to be specifically about him, but again, I can only see a small part of it. Here is another French source announcing an exhibition of his work. Have there been articles in the Dutch press? Foreign-language sources are perfectly fine for the English Wikipedia. Basically, one or two good sources covering Mr Sawyer would swing this. Good luck. Andreas JN 466 04:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist at AfD. when there is reasonable doubt, a speedy is inappropriate. I see people arguing the merits of the underlying aerticle in good faith, and the place to do it is at AfD. That will settle the issue one way or another. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Appears to be a vaild delete decision. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.