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 speedy keep. Article has been improved above my expectations (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Vincent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First off, fails WP:BLP for lack of sources. Second, appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO (again, mainly due to lack of sources). Third, article is written like a biography instead of an encyclopedia entry. It will be easier to start from a blank slate rather than hack and slash what's currently there to shoehorn it into conforming to Wikipedia's standards. In other words, BLOWITUP. Primefac (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• TNT it. Unless it's improved before the AfD is over, the current COI editing, lack of sources, and improper tone would make me think it's better to start over from a clean slate - when an editor with no COI writes about him. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 00:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP. Sources are being added and that was the main weakness. Improvement is in progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boozybuckeye (talk • contribs) 21:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this might be a sockpuppet or possibly a meatpuppet. No contributions except to this question. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 22:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP I object to the claims this entry should be considered for deletion.

There appear to be no lack of sources. There are multiple citations throughout the entry. All sources meet Wikipedia's criteria as acceptable for citation. In addition to 25 other citation sources, the subject is being used as a self-published source, meaning specifically the subject's personal website is a credible source for citation. The self-published website meets Wikipedia's criteria for acceptability because it is not self-serving, does not involve claims about third parties, does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, there is no reason to doubt its authenticity, and (MOST IMPORTANTLY) the Wikipedia entry does not rely on it as a primary source.

Also, as to the claim of Conflict of Interest, this entry does not promote self interest; there are no sales links or tour dates. The entry accurately and dispassionately outlines the artist's life and work. The POV is neutral, the information contained in the entry is verifiable, and original research is not presented or cited. It appears the burden of evidence has been met by the editors of this entry.

As to the claim of this entry reading like a biography, here is a clip from Wikipedia's entry on that topic: "a biography presents a subject's life story, highlighting various aspects of his or her life, including intimate details of experience, and may include an analysis of the subject's personality." This entry does not present the subject's life story and there are no intimate details or discussion of personality. The entry in question reads more like a CV and contains only verifiable information regarding the artist's professional work. In fact, I would offer that most encyclopedia entries contain much more personal information (i.e. early life, marriage, children, controversy, etc) than the one we are debating here. Furthermore, biographies of living persons are acceptable entries. Wikipedia's guidelines dictate biographies need to be written in a conservative and respectful manner with consideration of the subject's privacy. This entry does not include contentious material and makes no specious claims. The subject's privacy is not violated.

If additional citations are suggested, please respond with specific content. It is easy to make claims more citations are needed and simple to cite an entire wikipedia guideline page as support, however, based on the seriousness of the suggestions to delete the page, it seems actual examples with specific support are called for here. Thank you. Silverline72 (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)silverline72 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverline72 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silverline72: Please read the Articles for Deletion process. The "calls to delete" that you request be stopped do not exist. This is a single discussion that will last for at least 7 days. At the end of the 7 days an administrator will determine if a consensus has been reached, and either keep or delete the article based on the consensus of editors. If the administrator does not feel a consensus is reached they will let the discussion continue until such time as a clear consensus exists and then action will be taken. No amount of insisting that the process stop will be successful. Once an AfD has been started, it will be allowed to reach its conclusion based strictly on the policy. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 03:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wtwilson3: Hi Bill. Thank you for the advice. I have stated my objection. Do i understand correctly that I also need to remove a deletion tag? If so, would you explain how to do that? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverline72 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 16 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

No, as stated in the deletion tag, "this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed". Once a decision is reached, if the result is "keep" then the tag may be removed. But not before. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 15:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep & Improve — Bad writing in and of itself is not cause for deletion. The article needs improvements in tone and writing style, but it's not so horrible it needs to be nuked. Some ref improvement has already happened (although some are to primary sources). I just don't agree that this is a lost cause. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 16:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article clearly needs some improvement in the writing and format, but putting it up for deletion based on a lack of verifiable sources doesn't seem to hold any merit. There are bountiful references, many of which do seem to fit with Wikipedia guidelines. Keep improving it and keep it up. W.A.A.S. (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2015 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeAreAllStars (talk • contribs)

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.