Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG Williams (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 procedural close. Nominator has been blocked for impersonation and therefore this AfD is in prima facie bad faith. This, of course, does not prejudice any future good faith nominations. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

LG_Williams
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:FAILN: LG Williams is ranked below 50000 on artfacts database. WP:SELFPUB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baronosuna (talk • contribs) 16:20, October 29, 2014‎ (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't understand this deletion rationale. The article should be deleted because of the topic's ranking on some external site?  freshacconci  talk to me  10:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Dear Editors, clearly you should be not taken in by this repeated attempt at this latest attempt at vandalism.


 * Baronosuna is a sole purpose Vandal and Sockpuppet. In fact, the new and sole purpose user's name itself points directly to the ruse: "Baron Osuna" is the artist's friend and gallerist, Baron Osuna -- see Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/baron.osuna. Obviously, a gallerist would not delete information from a friend and associate; only someone with a vendetta would create such a blatant ruse.
 * Moreover, the fraudulent use of a living persons name in Wikipedia, unbeknownst to them and without their consent and authorization, should not go unpunished.


 * This page is under constant and repeated attempts at vandalism. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this vandal and how we can remove deletion from this page. --Xxxartxxx (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A sockpuppet of whom? What is the master account? Obviously the account looks suspicious--brand new users don't typically jump right into AfDs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Cyphoidbomb, thank you for your quick reply. The vandal's user name betrays the ruse: Baronosuna or rather, Baron Osuna. In other words, it is a blatent play on words or a joke. Baron Osuna is LG Williams's art gallerist. The wiki user knows this and is laughing at all the wiki commotion at the obvious joke!  The LG Williams wiki page should be placed under protection. If you look at the edit history, this is just the latest attempt whereby "brand new user jump right into AfDs."  Moreover, the fraudulent use of a living persons name in Wikipedia, unbeknownst to them and without their consent and authorization, should not go unpunished. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. --Xxxartxxx (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I understand your other points. A sockpuppet is a user who employs multiple accounts for some disruptive reason, typically for vandalism. If you think this is a sockpuppet (i.e. a previously disruptive user returning to continue their disruption), it would be helpful to know who the sockmaster is. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sole purpose User/Vandal Baronosuna account is currently blocked  --Xxxartxxx (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxxartxxx (talk • contribs) 17:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Now that the vandal's accounts has been blocked, can I remove the vandalism / damage caused by Baronosuna? --Xxxartxxx (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like any additions to the article by Baronosuna have been reverted. As for the nomination for deletion, deletion discussions last for 7 days. I don't know what the policy is, if any, about deletions nominated by editors later blocked. Normally these discussions are left to run their course. A non-administrator can close a discussion after the 7 days if consensus is clear but I'm not certain about this situation. It would be best to wait for an administrator to weigh in. Removing the AfD template yourself could get you blocked. As this AfD was launched in bad faith I can see the article being kept as there was no proper rationale given for deletion. Wait until others weigh in.  freshacconci  talk to me  17:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would probably not remove the AfD yourself, . I've changed my reply to "Speedy keep for now" in the hope that we can get a quick resolution to this. I would, however, encourage you to beef up the article somewhat by properly establishing the subject's notability. The references are a mess, both in formatting and bulk, and we can't use articles written by Williams to establish his notability. We need either the general notability guideline to be met by providing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" or to clearly establish in the lead that he meets the criteria laid out at WP:ARTIST. And it probably wouldn't hurt to explain why he is notable on the article's talk page so we can avoid another AfD. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep for now Nominating editor was blocked for impersonating a compatriot of the subject, and the user's deletion rationale was puzzling. Until such time as a cogent argument can be made for this article to be deleted, the article should be kept. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2014 (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.