Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LeShaun (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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable songstress whose only claim to fame appears to be having sung on a couple of LL Cool J's song. Aside from the article being in terrible shape, it mentions songs being released by her, but I sure can't find any evidence of any. (How the first AfD resulted in "keep" is beyond me.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - If you read what happened in the first AfD, it appears that this artist's notability is supported by various sources. The article is currently messed up due to vandalism and amateurish edits, and a decent version of the article might be available back in its history somewhere. An AfD (especially this second one) is not necessarily the proper forum for fixing an article that has been vandalized or damaged. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 18:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize that, but I looked for sources myself and couldn't find any. The one link that was brought up in the previous AfD doesn't even mention her. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Weak delete per Erpert, particularly regarding the difficulty of reliable sourcing. It really doesn't help that the article is written in a bizarre advertisement/fan style, with verbiage like "way ahead of her time", "kept it lite", and so on.  Hasn't been improved since the last AFD (in fact it's gotten worse), so it's unlikely another year is going to help. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * delete the "sources" cited in the last AFD fail WP:N in not providing any significant coverage other than a vague implication that a rapper by that name exists. If a year since the last Afd and 4 years since the creation is not sufficient for the supporters of the article to provide valid sourcing, even though there is no deadline, how long are we supposed to wait with an unsourced WP:BLP??? Active Banana    (bananaphone  03:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Have y'all noticed that the last name of the person this article is about in the lede was changed by a 2-edit IP during the progress of this AfD? There are a handful of references in the magazine Vibe, and one in a book about Def Jam , relating to the previous name, that are pretty easily discoverable by Google Books. --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  07:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My not finding any sources may have been affected by that edit, but that in no way impacts the fact that the article has been unsourced for 4 years and the fact that no one else discovered or was able to detect that vandalism gives me even less hope that this BLP should remain. Active Banana    (bananaphone  13:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, just figured it was worth having all the info on the table. Thanks for the reply. --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  18:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: no claim relevant to WP:NMUSIC, no indication of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Vibe article cited above mentions a "LeShaun Toreau Williams" -- not Le'Shaun Thompson. The Def Jam citation also appears to be about LeShaun Williams. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article used Williams, not Thompson, as the last name of this article subject until two days ago, the article used Williams as the last name when this AfD was started. It was changed by an SPA IP, who, last I checked, had made two edits ever. So you're going to discount sources talking about Williams based on an unsourced two-edit IP's name change?  I think that's a mistake. I'm agnostic about whether this person is notable, but lets at least agree on what's being discussed. --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  18:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)  ("agnostic" Struck through as I've now expressed an opinion on notability below.)  --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  19:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * At the time of the AfD, she was both LeShaun Williams and LeShaun Ward. Nobody seems to have sufficient certainty as to her surname to revert LeShaun Thompson (born Selena Thompsom), to date. Given this level of uncertainty about a detail as basic as her surname, I don't see how we're in a position to write an article. Do we even no for sure that we're all talking about the same LeShaun? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I had assumed that "LeShaun Thompson" was vandalism.  But your point is on target in any case, I'd missed the "Ward" in the history. --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  04:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not an unreasonable assumption. But I can't be sure (and suspect that you can't either). If we don't have sufficient WP:Verifiability to tell the difference between fact and vandalism on the basics with any certainty, then an article really isn't a good idea. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Not quite enough sourcing (despite my corrections above related to Williams sourcing), plus some concerns that some accusations in at least one of the sources will turn into BLP violation fodder.  --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  19:12, 23 December 2010 (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.