Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allan Detrich


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Allan Detrich

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Person who is only notable for one thing. Redddogg (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not sure what exactly this "one thing" he is supposed to be notable for according to the nom, but this is not a BLP1E case. I assume the nom means is that the notability comes only from the photo-altering scandal. First, I don't think that is correct. There is substantial coverage of the subject prior to the scandal. He was a Pulitzer finalist, according to the ref in the article, and had won various photographic awards well before the scandal, see, for example, this article from 1998. GoogleNews has 73 hits, may pre-dating the scandal. Even if one accepts the logic that most of his notability comes from the 2007 photo altering scandal, the scandal was primarily about him personally, so an article about the scandal (which is notable) would primarily cover Allan Detrich anyway. Nsk92 (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article only talks about him being fired for using Photoshop on his newsphotos. Every day many people get fired from their jobs, but that is not material for an encyclopedia article because it has no lasting importance -- the information that someone got fired that is -- the event of being fired is important to the person and his or her family of course. Redddogg (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Nsk92 - there is substantial coverage of him before - apparently he is well known as a "storm chaser" and other articles. Not one event.John Z (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope that if the article is kept that some of this other information is included. Right now it reads like an attack article. (Not related to the AfD issue is that only other news photographers would care about the Photoshop issue. Making too much of it comes off as kind of geeky, IMO. Kind of like if someone got kicked out of the Star Trek Fan Club for using elf ears for Vulcan ears.) Redddogg (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, looking at the history it has fluctuated between being quite positive (perhaps edited by subject or associate) and being close to an attack article. John Z (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to undermine my own AfD. But if the article survives I will work on improving it. The story of a person's life shouldn't be dominated by one incident of being fired from a job. (If so I am in real trouble. :-) ) Redddogg (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep there seems to be substantial documentednotability from several points. DGG (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I think he's notable enough, but as it stands the article places undue weight on the photo-altering scandal. This isn't cause for deletion, but it definitely needs cleanup. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleaunup as per all of the above. --Crusio (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP really needs an article on "Photography ethics", right now it has Visual ethics which discusses the issues in a very general way. Redddogg (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2008 (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.