Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Andrews (artist manager) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Bob Andrews (artist manager)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and. Unscintillating (talk) 05:24, 24 June 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 that he can have the article speedy-deleted via WP:CSD. —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)
 * 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.