Talk:Errol Sawyer/Archive 1

Solving Problems
In order to solve the editing problem of the Errol Sawyer article, I edited the unnecessary parts out of this discussion but I have saved all the comments.


 * Added in this edit of 08:07, 4 May 2009 by User:1027E; cf the content of this rather earlier addition of mine.


 * That may have been intended as a solution to a problem. However, it merely complicated matters. Please do not remove anything from this or any talk page other than your own. -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

My edits

 * Notability tag: the article still fails to demonstrate significant coverage from 3rd-party sources (the most basic criteria for a Wikipedia article). Not to mention, the article was previously deleted and isn't showing much validation at all for being recreated.
 * Primary sources tag: sources like this, this, this, and this are all primary (and some of them poor, at that).
 * Removed refs:
 * This artnet.com ref does not back up the claim it follows.


 * "Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, New York, USA, has not digitized their archives yet." Do I even need to explain this one?


 * Removed the second quote: this is getting to POV-pushing w/ back-to-back flattering quotes; not to mention, what someone said to introduce someone's work isn't very "third-party" or count as a legit source without having gone through a publication process - although I think I left the ref in one spot where it wasn't being used for flattery.
 * Clarification inline tag: he "found his vocation as a photographer" in 1968, but he had already bought his first camera in 1966 and wouldn't become a professional until 1971. That could use a little clarity.


 * Removed some bio info: being impacted by the 60s and Woodstock is vague, and along with his uncited passion for chess, irrelevant and unencyclopedic. Other deletions were for original research.

My other concerns are that the exhibitions and collections lists are mainly OR (although I didn't tag them) and that too much of the info is cited to self-published sources. For example, the two main lists of mags he's shot for are exactly what third-party, reliable sources are most needed for.

I also did some wikifying and rewriting so that the article reads a little better.  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 16:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikifying and rewriting? You don't even know what a vocation is. You delete a very important reference, PF magazine, without any second thought because you are too impatient to wait for their server. You just manipulate the article direction deletion because of your own problem with Errol Sawyer since he popped up in the Christie Brinkley article as the one who has discovered her. You could hardly accept the reference to Michael Gross book there and you continued taking away African in front of American. What's your real problem? You should treasure every African-American artist that rises up to the level of an Errol Sawyer despite people who are racist and prefer him to be invisable.1027E (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 1027E, editors of Wikipedia take seriously allegations of thoughtlessness ("impulsive eruptions"), bad faith ("hatred" and insinuation of some "real problem"), and ignorance ("you know nothing about art and art history"). Please either (a) concisely and politely back up these allegations with clear evidence, or (b) retract them and consider apologizing for them. As it is, I see no evidence for them, while I see a blatant violation of WP:AGF by yourself, and serious concerns about WP:OWN and WP:COI. And all of this in/about an article whose very existence appears problematic, as it was re-created after deletion by "AfD" without (as far as I am aware) any discussion in WP:DRV. -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC) This comment was in response to the comment by 1027E as seen here but subsequently revised. -- Hoary (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reinstated part of 1027E's comment that she removed in this edit, and I have reinstated my own comment, which she removed in the same edit.

1027E, please read this, carefully. It applies to everybody, you and me included. -- Hoary (talk) 07:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Hoary, you miss out on a lot. There was a long discussion for several months with Mbineri and Robbie about the fact that Errol Sawyer was mentioned in Christie Brinkley's article as the one who discovered her. But that is history. Errol Sawyer is in her article to stay as it is the truth. But Mbineri still seems to have problems to accept Errol Sawyer's own article1027E (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, you are welcome either (a) to provide clear evidence (via precise diffs) for your allegations of "hatred" etc, or (b) to retract these allegations. As long as you do neither, you make it hard for me to believe anything that you say. -- Hoary (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Action is reaction
Action is reaction. Mbineri and I we have a history together. Ask his friend Robbie too. Read how they address Errol Sawyer and me in their talk page. If Mbineri apologizes for taking away references again like PF Magazine and the fact that Schomburg Library of Black Culture has not digitized their archives yet (which says it all about the New York, USA), I will apologize to him too. Mbineri took away several times the reference of Michael Gross in the Christie Brinkley article that says that Errol Sawyer discovered her. He still takes out African in front of American. Now the reference of the book of Michael Gross is still there but it took a while...

I am working on getting the scanned PF article connected in pdf to the Errol Sawyer article so it cannot be taken away anymore by people who don't have the patience for a server to load. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation and on top of that respect for an important artist like Errol Sawyer. Maybe you can look at his website one time.1027E (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I presume that you mean User:Robby.is.on. A quick look through the talk pages of both users shows nothing objectionable, aside from your allegation of bad faith in this edit, in which you say You have bad intentions [...] you are looking for revanche [...] You are insulting [Sawyer] on purpose. If you think I missed something vital, please point me to the precise edit (just as I have now pointed you to a precise edit).


 * Mbineri was right to remove the comment about the Schomburg Library.


 * If by the PF Magazine reference you mean the two links to http://www.profoto.nl/PF-site/archief.php then I'd point out that as of about ten minutes ago this URL redirected to http://www.professionelefotografie.nl/ -- a page that does not mention Sawyer. If the two articles appear somewhere else within this website or some other website, then what's needed are the precise URLs.


 * The article now lists six solo exhibitions, only one of which is sourced; and six collections, only two of which are sourced. Contrast those percentages with the 100% sourced lists for Chris Steele-Perkins. I have good reason to believe that Steele-Perkins had other solo exhibitions that I do not list, and the reason I don't list them is that although I believe that they occurred I can't (yet) provide reliable evidence for this. WP:RS also applies to every assertion of an achievement within this article on Sawyer, and the more insistent you are that it does not or that extenuating circumstances override WP:RS, or that for others to question claims made within this article constitutes an insult to Sawyer, racism, or whatever, the closer you come to a block for disruptive behavior and the more likely this article is to be sent off for a second AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Section reposted after deletion by 1027E; see this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia hosting of PDFs of Sawyer's works
Please see this question of mine and (I hope) the informed answers that it will attract. -- Hoary (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The material is now here. -- Hoary (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I will try to put the article in a webloc. At least you can read it then as their server is slow. Can you explain me why you are so negative about a magazine that is 8 years old? Why do you talk about "trivia about the artist" while it is informing the reader about important back ground information and ideas of the artist?1027E (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I nowhere talk about trivia about Sawyer, and still less do I use the phrase "trivia about the artist". Can you explain how you have imagined this, or how you infer that I am "negative about" this magazine? However, rather than spending your time on me, you might instead find precisely where within professionelefotografie.nl (or profoto.nl) this article about/of Sawyer's is to be found, after however long a delay. For as of two minutes ago, http://www.profoto.nl/PF-site/archief/archief.php (to which the WP article links) brings no unusual delay whatever and instead promptly redirects to the top page of professionelefotografie.nl, a page that does not mention Sawyer. -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "What's uploaded is little more than a cover, editorial trivia, and stuff by Sawyer." I think this quote from your post is what 1027E's referring to.  Just trying to clear up the confusion.    Fl ee tf la me   00:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. By "editorial trivia" I meant the contents page, though it's true that in the context of magazines "editorial" can be used in contradistinction to "advertising" and so my comment might be taken to include the essay by Herman Hoeneveld, which I did not have in mind. So I'll rewrite: "What's uploaded is little more than a cover, trivial editorial material, an essay by Hoeneveld, and photographs by Sawyer." The "little more" is added in order to anticipate any claim to IP rights for the layout, etc, of the article. -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for helping, finally. You will be mentioned in Errol Sawyer's biography chapter The Wiki Experience. Did you read the e-mail of Mary Yearwood, curator of Schomburg Library of Black Culture? Can you make a pdf of it for me and ad it to Wiki? Thank you very much. Monday I can talk to Eric Franck and Fadi Zahar. Can you help me with the right copyrights for attaching the PF article too? I am 100% I will get their permission next Monday. 1027E (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have read the email. No, I am not going to upload anything to Wikipedia for you. Please read and digest Image use policy. Quadell points out here that, copyright law permitting, such material can be uploaded to another site and then linked to. Sawyer's own site errolsawyer.com would seem the obvious choice for this. -- Hoary (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have read the e-mail of Mary Yearwood, you can understand that it is wrong to delete this info as a reference. For PF Magazine goes the same. So why can't you take the notability tag away of Mbineri? He does not answer anymore. If you go to the PF site, in the reference, you have to click on archief (= archive in English) and wait for 1 minute. Then you fill in Titel (=Title in English) of the article "Errol Sawyer", Naam (=Name in English of the author "Herman Hoeneveld" and Datum ( = Date in English) "2001". After this you have to wait again for one minute and then you will see the cover of the magazine, not the 8 pages. Let me know if you have succeeded or if this is too difficult for you. Patience is needed.

It will take me a while before I can get the copyrights well as I have a 4 years old son who is sick at this moment but at least you and Mbineri can see that the article exists. You both deleted the Errol Sawyer article last time suggesting that it did not exist. In the end of the PF article you can read: "Today, he lives and works in Amsterdam. “I consider Amsterdam as my home. I am deeply disappointed by the political and social situation in the U.S.A. and I find it morally and physically impossible to live in a society that remains apathetic to the slaughter and imprisonment of innocent people of color in their own country, while simultaneously lecturing other often so called less developed countries about their violation(s) of ‘Human Rights’!.” Apart from that he is not bitter, but could be described as being cautious with excessively high expectations."

No editorial trivia in PF Magazine... Nice you took that back thanks to Fleetflame. 1027E (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You raise quite a few points and I do not have the time or energy to address all of them.


 * I take your word for it that if one follows the procedure you've described one arrives at the cover of the magazine in which the article about Sawyer appeared. Then the link should go.


 * So far we have evidence that there was one magazine article about Sawyer's works, that he's had one solo exhibition, and that his works are represented in the collections of two art galleries. If he is notable by WP standards, the article hardly shows this. I think that it either should be improved or should go. The "notability" template doesn't seem misplaced.


 * I hope that your son recovers quickly. -- Hoary (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The text above was deleted by 1027E in this edit. -- Hoary (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the pdf of PF Magazine as well as the book cover as we don't want to permit free use. You can read a printable English version of the text of the Dutch Pf article at Errol Sawyer's website.--1027E (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * [[File:PFMagazineNL8pages.pdf]] and [[File:PFTranslationUK8pages.pdf]] were deleted not by you but by User:Peripitus; see this explanation. You deleted neither. However, you did delete much of the discussion above, well after I explained to an earlier member of your chain of usernames that such deletions were not allowed. -- Hoary (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability Errol Sawyer
Once again: the amount of pictures in important collections determine the notability of an artist. In this case: MFAH, Bibliotheque Nationale and Schomburg. On top of that Eric Franck, Manfred Heiting and Fadi Zahar. If you would be known with European culture, you would know that these people are very important. Eric Franck is the brother in law of Henri Cartier-Bresson. Probably you don't know him either.

Errol Sawyer had several solo exhibitions but before digital times. But it is the collections that count. I will ask somebody else to take the tags away as the person who actually deleted it, MBisanz, acknowledges now that he does not know enough about photography to help me further. As long as you don't vote for deletion again I am fine because by next week I will have Eric Franck too as a reference again. 1027E (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Errol Sawyer is also ground breaking as an artist as he is the only African American photographer who worked in the Seventies in Paris. Like a James Baldwin (African-American writer), Beauford Delaney (African-American painter) and Chester Himes (African American writer) Errol Sawyer chose to live in Europe as he feels saver there.

Errol Sawyer is a very important role model for the African American Community. He is also the only African American photographer in Holland and his works stands out because of his strong graphics and double layers and complex meanings. How can I address this to a board who determines notability? You are only a specialist in Japanese photography.1027E (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * there is no board. notability is determined at AfD by the community. the results there are unpredictable, with a considerable amount of randomness. The standards for notability by inclusion in major permanent collections appear to be met, however.  The coverage by a significant magazine in the field would add to it. If the coverage was substantial, as appears to be the case, it does not have to be accessible on line. The burden of doubt here is on someone who challenges it. DGG (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with much, but not all, of what DGG writes. Perhaps I'll get to the disagreement later. In the meantime, two points:

First, this talk page is for discussion of the article, and not for discussion of the subject of the article.

Secondly, on myself (and superior alternatives). While I am indeed unaware of Eric Franck, just three days ago I was looking at a book of his sister's photographs, and I am moderately well acquainted with the work of her late husband. But yes, I am a humble neophyte in European culture. If you'd like to discuss my ignorance, please do so on my talk page. If you'd like input from somebody who's a lot more knowledgable than I am, I recommend User:Jpgordon. -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I will contact Jpgordon. He seems to have good taste in photography. Thank you.1027E (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki project of History of Photography
I asked for advise in the Wiki project of History of Photography.1027E (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability OK
As a passionate photography lover I read the Dutch PF Magazine. I also read the article of Errol Sawyer. Everyone, who is familiar with his work, knows that he is notable.

1. His work is present in important collections worldwide.

2. He did ground breaking work as an African American artist leaving the Bronx and working in Paris and London in the 70s on top level.

3. He is a well accomplished artist considering his eouvre.

Maybe he is not notable to a Mbineri, specialized in "Star" articles such as Christie Brinkley's (although she would not be a star without the help of Sawyer), or Hoary, specialized in Japanese photography, but he is notable to DGG, a very respected and seasoned editor, and to 1027E, the creator of his article and to me.Mdeloos (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone, who is familiar with his work, knows that he is notable. This is not at all how notability is determined within Wikipedia. If you have evidence for notability, please present it. Meanwhile, I am readding the "notability" flag. -- Hoary (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Re-added tag per Hoary and per that Mdeloos is clearly an SPA aligned with Sawyer/"1027E", if not a sockpuppet account.   Mbinebri   talk &larr; 04:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, read the following rules for notability in Wikipedia:

Creative professionals Shortcut: WP:CREATIVE

Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

* The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. * The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

(c) Sawyer has won significant critical attention (PF Magazine)

(d) Sawyer's work is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries and museums, AND has works in many significant libraries. (Museum of Fine Art Houston, USA, Victoria & Albert Museum, UK, Eric Franck, UK AND La Bibliotheque Nationale, France, Schomburg Library of Black Culture, USA)

I take your tag away again. Period.Mdeloos (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (c) A single magazine article is hardly "significant critical attention".


 * (d) I'm not aware that any evidence has been presented of possession by Franck, The V&A's holdings amount to a single CD-ROM of Sawyer's works, presented by Sawyer. So in reality, two institutions. Or, if I'm in a credulous mood, three. And one of these is of just two pictures.


 * I'm willing to believe that Sawyer is noteworthy. You may wish to put your energy into locating and presenting evidence (which would make it more likely that the article would last). You may instead wish to put it into edit warring (which is likely to lead indirectly to a second AfD). It's your call. -- Hoary (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Errol Sawyer at WP:BLPN
Please see this notice at WP:BLPN; you may wish to comment there. -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Nationality in lead
I have corrected this per WP:MOSBIO. This also might be a conflict of interest issue, not sure. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted this again and left a note on User:1027E's talk page in response. --Tom (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Might be a conflict of interest issue"? Wiki understatement of the century!    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 17:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, yeah, I guess that was as suttle as a broken leg :) Is 1027E Sawyer? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

ZoneZero
In a version of the article such as this one, www.zonezero.com/comunity/portfolios is given as a reference for the claim that Errol Francis Sawyer (born Errol Stanley Sawyer on August 8, 1943) is an American photographer who currently lives and works in Amsterdam, Holland.

That page tells us that ''ZoneZero offers the section called Portfolios in addition to our curated gallery space. / [...] We [...] created a forum free of editorial judgement.'' The requirements for participation are clearly linked; they're here.

What this appears to mean is that ZoneZero will uncritically reproduce what any photographer asks them to say, as long as the photographer abides by the constraints on length, file dimensions, etc. So it's not a reliable source.

Incidentally, Sawyer is here in the site; note that this URL includes "comunity/portfolios/" and so it is part of the "all comers" section. -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Zone Zero reference shows 5 pictures which is good for an editor who refuses to use Flash and can therefore not look at the work of Errol Sawyer. But, I agree, it is better to put the reference after: "However, most of his time is spent on documentary and fine art photography: naturally lit black and white photographs in the streets of New York, Paris and Amsterdam where he has lived since 1999.[4]"

I hope you can agree with me, Hoary, that if Eric Franck ads Errol to his website, his notability is solved. Mbineri will never agree with anything in favor of Errol Sawyer because of the Brinkley history. By the way, where is his text in the discussions? Did he/you take it out?1027E (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, check this and put the reference back, please. After some research on the Internet I a came across:

Zone Zero Los Angeles, California. "From analog to digital photography." Spanish and English. Social/political documentary photography with a focus (but not entirely) on Latin America. "Exhibitions" feature images and text from more than sixty photographers, including Joel-Peter Witkin, Lucien Clergue, and many highly talented but unknown artists. First class site.









1027E (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I see nothing in the Zone Zero site that indicates that Sawyer was ever in the 'Zone Zero Magazine' as claimed in the article. The ZZ site merely shows that Sawyer has a 5 image portfolio hosted on the portfolio site that is open to submission. Accordingly, I am deleting the claim of being in the magazine unless a reference is provided.  TheMindsEye (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Musee de la Photographie, Bievre
This museum just proof of the exhibition and found 6 pictures in their archives. We will work on their digital reference now.

Delivered-To: X

Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 09:31:55 +0200

From: "Marie PALLEAU"

To: X

Subject: Rép. : Past Exhibition


 * Proprietary **

Cher X,

J'espère que vous lisez aussi bien le français que vous ne le parlez. Sinon, dites-le moi, j'essaierai de m'exprimer en anglais.

J'ai retrouvé la trace de l'exposition à laquelle vous avez participé en 1991 au musée français de la Photographie. Il s'agit de l'exposition "Visages d'enfants. Visages des rues. Les années 1970" (3 juillet - 31 août 1991). Vous nous aviez donné à l'époque 6 tirages noir et blanc format 30x40cm dont je n'ai malheureusement pas de titre associé. Ces tirages ont été enregistrés dans nos collections sous le n°92.8386.

J'espère avoir répondu à vos interrogations.

Cordialement,

Marie Palleau

Assistante qualifiée de conservation du patrimoine

Régisseuse de la collection Images

Musée français de la Photographie

78, rue de Paris

91570 Bièvres

01.60.79.99.90

www.museedelaphoto.fr

It will take some time to retrace this digitally.1027E (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * For those whose French is even rustier than mine, MP says that the addressee(s) of this email donated six prints from, or related to, a 1991 exhibition of photographs of the 1970s, an exhibition in which the addressee(s) participated. (Plus various details which I'll skip here.)


 * I don't know what you mean by "retrace this digitally". I hope that you are not going to upload it as a file to WP; WP is not a repository for documentary evidence of claims made in articles. -- Hoary (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As this museum is also dealing with lack of money, they will not be able to digitize their archives shortly. But the letter, above, shows that there are 6 pictures in their collection.1027E (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert war
Merely the most recent edits concerning "Zone Zero" (on which see above): -- Hoary (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 17:01 18 May Mbinebri removes footnote citing Zone Zero mag: Google search results not a ref - claim already has source anyway; removed tags to consolidate with Twinkle
 * 19:47 18 May 1027E readds footnote: Zone Zero Magazine
 * 20:24 18 May TheMindsEye removes footnote: rvt EL - doesn't seem to have any info on Sawyer, and doesn't meet the test of WP:EL
 * 20:54 18 May 1027E readds footnote: Undid revision 290787682 by TheMindsEye (talk)
 * 21:03 18 May Mbinebri removes footnote: Reverted to revision 290787682 by TheMindsEye; TheMindsEye's issue is valid. (TW)
 * 21:21 18 May 1027E readds footnote: Undid revision 290796094 by Mbinebri (talk); in succeeding edits, adds a little to this
 * 22:21 18 May Mbinebri removes footnote: Reverted 4 edits by 1027E identified as vandalism to last revision by Mbinebri. (TW)
 * 08:55 19 May 1027E readds footnote twice: Career: Zero Zone Magazine
 * 10:19 19 May TheMindsEye removes one of these: Zone Zero Magazine - see discussion on talk page
 * 11:08 19 May 1027E reverts this: Undid revision 290913750 by TheMindsEye (talk)


 * Now at WP:AN/Edit warring. -- Hoary (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not round #2
It's become a touchy point, this whole Zone Zero thing, but hopefully - a week and some later - 1027E has become level-headed enough to see that uploading a portfolio to a forum is not the same as being published by a magazine, and that of the editors who've weighed in on the subject, no one agrees with her. But if the claim is returned yet again, I'm not going to revert it. I'm just going to report it and let admins handle it as I should have done earlier than I did. No more edit warring. Or we can change it to what the source actually proves: that a Wiki editor uploaded some photos to this website, which is clearly non-notable.

I removed some unsourced claims as well. It's a little fishy to list several mags worked for and follow them with a source that only confirms two or three, so I reduced the lists to reflect what the source states. Also, I removed the unsourced beauty campaigns and the line He photographed the painter Beauford Delaney and actresses Patti D'Arbanville, Jessica Lange and Maria Schneider in Paris. I'd challenged and removed this previously and I vaguely remember it being returned with the rationale of, "It should be included because it's really important," and no ref, which obviously doesn't cut it. If there's truth to these claims, then great, but let whoever returns the info provide an adequate source per Wiki policy and there will be no reason for anyone to get upset.

Will 1027E flip out when she sees my edits? Hopefully not, but probably so. This is not to instigate anything. This is to leave behind a section of material almost entirely sourced by removing what surely would have been sourced by now if there was a source to be found for it.

Lastly (man, I didn't expect to write this much), is Depeche Mode a magazine in Europe? Because it links to the band.  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 02:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That a photographer has photographed slebs means very little. Slebs are much photographed. The questions to ask are of where the photos were/are published and of what notice has been taken of them. (Leibowitz has photographed slebs and had the results published -- not just ephemerally in some issue of a magazine, but later reproduced in books -- and exhibited.) &para; Dépêche Mode certainly is a magazine, or anyway was one. The British popsters named themselves after it. -- Hoary (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD
Now that the article has been back for awhile and nothing new appears forthcoming, I think it's time for the Wiki community to take a look. If it's deemed enough to stick around, I wouldn't oppose the notability tag being removed.  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 15:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)