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.
My searches have simply found nothing better at all and there's nothing convincing where I would've frankly PRODed but it likely would've been removed because of the apparent magazines connections, but aside from that, I'm simply not seeing anything else actually convincing. It seems there's also not an article at the other native Wiki. Notifying past taggers involved with this article
JamesBWatson,
DGG and
Rrburke.
SwisterTwistertalk06:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)reply
@
SwisterTwister: In an article which has been edited by 20 different editors, picking out three who last edited five years ago, two of whom nominated the article for deletion and the other of whom tagged it for sourcing, and pinging them looks dangerously like
canvassing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk)
20:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)reply
probably Delete. I don't really want to say he's definitely not notable, but the material currently present in the article doesn't seem to show notability: no worksin major museums, or major critical works about him. DGG (
talk )
08:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Even though the article does not show notability. If you Google him you will see, add the word photography. Also add use the news tab. Some things may not be linked due to nudity, I do not know the policy on that but I will look it up because I saw at least one article that should be included.
Jadeslair (
talk)
16:28, 8 June 2016 (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.
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.
My searches have simply found nothing better at all and there's nothing convincing where I would've frankly PRODed but it likely would've been removed because of the apparent magazines connections, but aside from that, I'm simply not seeing anything else actually convincing. It seems there's also not an article at the other native Wiki. Notifying past taggers involved with this article
JamesBWatson,
DGG and
Rrburke.
SwisterTwistertalk06:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)reply
@
SwisterTwister: In an article which has been edited by 20 different editors, picking out three who last edited five years ago, two of whom nominated the article for deletion and the other of whom tagged it for sourcing, and pinging them looks dangerously like
canvassing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk)
20:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)reply
probably Delete. I don't really want to say he's definitely not notable, but the material currently present in the article doesn't seem to show notability: no worksin major museums, or major critical works about him. DGG (
talk )
08:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Even though the article does not show notability. If you Google him you will see, add the word photography. Also add use the news tab. Some things may not be linked due to nudity, I do not know the policy on that but I will look it up because I saw at least one article that should be included.
Jadeslair (
talk)
16:28, 8 June 2016 (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.