Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Lacy (musician) (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 Move back to draft space. No protections at this time, but a further unsupported move back to articlespace should probably warrant a move protection Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lacy (musician)

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

Some editor accepted the draft, and issues have not been addressed since the move. I'll propose moving this article back to draftspace and address those issues. KGirlTrucker81 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 11:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 11:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 11:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 11:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Actually, it doesn't appear it was ever "accepted". The editor felt that it no longer needed to be evaluated, and simply moved the article to mainspace, despite not addressing those referencing issues. After that move another editor simply "reviewed" it. Brief history, it was sent back to draft as a result of an earlier AfD, where it continued to be declined due to referencing issues. The latest decline was on July 7, again for improper sourcing. The difference between that last decline and the current article can be seen here. A lot of references doesn't make someone notable. I think it's a good thing for the community to take a look - especially since this editor has put so much work into it.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify In October 2016, this article was changed to a redirect due to lack of sourcing then changed back to an article in February 2017 [1]. It was changed to a redirect later in February 2017, as an unsourced BLP and as an alternative to deletion [2]. Bmegrl9113 began to add content with the redirect still in place [3] and the reidrect was removed by someone else [4]. It was prodded on the same day [5].

On the next day, Bmegrl9113 began to add content while still prodded, which is acceptable [6], but apparently the sourcing was not up to standards, so this was then sent to the first AfD [7]. The result of the AfD was to place in AfC. Bmegrl9113 then moved it to their user space in early March 2017 [8]. Bmegrl9113 attempted to create this as a redirect with content still in place, as a draft article (in the user space) [9] and I don't know the reason.

This was later removed as unacceptable in the user space and as a draft article [10] along with main space categories. Bmegrl9113 later moved the page back to draft space [11]. That same day they added content and refs but the submission was also later declined on that same day [12]. By 7 July this Draft had been declined three times (please scroll down) [13] after many edits by Bmegrl9113.

On 21 July 2017, Bmegrl9113 moved this from the Draft space to the Main space [14] with the apparent insufficient rationale - "Has enough reputable references (more than other articles that haven't ever been nominated for deletion)". And here we are. Bmegrl9113 seems to have done most of the editing and moving the article. Enthusiasm is appreciated, but if the article is not ready for main space then please honor that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.