Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Henson


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Allen Henson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP1E. One lawsuit that got some coverage because of the subject + amount, but no lasting notability beyond that one event. Fram (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)




 * Keep He has published three books, been featured in many international publications and articles since. The initial news coverage you are referring to was substantial and only the beginning of his notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaledel (talk • contribs) 10:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * His three books are supposedly "Editorial on the rocks", "Editorial on the run", and "Paraphalia" (probably should be "Paraphilia"?). "Editorial on the run" is not published yet and is only discussed on his own website, so doesn't count. Paraphilia seems to have received no significant attention at all, probably because it also hasn't been published (yet?). Which leavs us with one book, not three. It also has barely received any significant attention it gets mentioned in the margin of the Empire State Building lawsuit, which again indicates that he is notable for that event, not as a photographer (e.g. this NY Post article ). Fram (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Insufficient persistent, in-depth coverage in third-party, independent reliable sources to indicate notability per WP:ANYBIO; the only coverage concerning him personally is of a peripheral and transitory nature. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  13:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  13:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete It's pretty much all WP:1EVENT aside from a few mentions in blogs which don't seem to meet WP:RS. As PR stunts go, he certainly got a lot of press. But for him to be notable as a photographer, he needs more in-depth writing about his skills as a photographer, or other indications of notability like exhibitions in prestigious galleries, reviews, awards, etc; aside from a couple of brief mentions, I can't see anything. Article is not good, and urgently needs proper sourcing for some claims, but that's not necessarily grounds for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.  Callmemirela   &#127809; talk 15:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ' Keep' albeit the page needs some work, it is of a photographer that is indeed noteworthy. The photographer in question has creditentals that overshadow the single incident you are fixated on. He has worked with the elites of the industry, so A book publication in addition to the single event with international coverage is enough to keep this page. It seems as if there are multiple events lumped together with the nude Empire State photo shoot.   JackL   &#127809; talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack. L (talk • contribs)  (blocked as a sockpuppet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC))
 * Note this comprises JackL's only edits to date, which is presumably why they've copied Callmemirela's signature formatting. How curious that someone new turns up for the sole purpose of defending an awful page for a photographer with an eye on PR, and (while both conditions are regrettably too widespread to constitute a WP:DUCK) suffers from the same spelling errors and Caps Disease as the article's creator. (I've taken the liberty of closing the open tags). Pinkbeast (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete Agree page is in awful condition, but definetly passes GNG. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  16:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC) Changing stance to delete as not enough notability to pass the GNG, so BLP1E is it. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  00:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't get there from here. If this chap is notable (which I'm not convinced of; perhaps the Empire State incident is notable) this mass of hagiography would be of no use in assembling a decent article. Additionally, what we have now is rather pushing the boundaries between paraphrase and copyvio (see eg this cite where he "has an innate ability to create a complex narrative filled with sensuality and surrealism, then capture those provocative moments on camera"), to say nothing of G11 unambiguous advertising or promotion.
 * If he is notable, someone who's not his PR flack can create the article, perhaps going via AFC. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The author did list it at AfC, which is how I found this. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  17:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How curious, I don't see that in the logs; I must be missing something. Regardless, what I mean is that it would be good, if this chap does merit a page, that it were created 1) by a disinterested editor who 2) goes via AFC. They could perhaps sift the bona-fide sources from the incidental mentions and regurgitated press releases. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I misspoke, it's actually at requested articles. I thought about creating it, but this discussion is making me think that the best I will be able to create is a 7 sentence stub. I trimmed the article of bulky lists. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  19:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per BLP1E. His only claim to notability is his Empire State Building publicity stunt with a cell phone camera. He is not a notable photographer. Of his three claimed books, one may be self published by an obscure Georgia company and neither Google Books nor Amazon shows any trace of the other two. No museum exhibitions, no major gallery shows, no critical attention to his photography that I could find. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Good catch re self-publishing - here's the Indiegogo campaign to get the money to publish the one of the books which seems to have been published at all. And I also found cutting and pasting from his own PR, down to the Caps Disease in "Henson is Agency approved". (You'll have to take my word for this because Diannaa has revdelled a lot of the history for copyvio.) Pinkbeast (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom with no hint of notability going on here. --Lockley (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing rises above not tabloid and one event notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I have a wikipedia page? does need work, significant work. - Allen_henson (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep He has been published in Playboy, on the cover in Runway Magazine and America's Next Top Model. I also think that the one event of notability is really three events- the Photo Shoot, The nude shoot at the courthouse and the counter suit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackslash (talk • contribs) 21:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC) (blocked as a sockpuppet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC))
 * Comment I have concerns regarding the past 2 !votes. One is by the subject (perhaps), and the other is by a brand new editor, who has only edited Allen Henson. While I AGF, I will point out that socking in AfDs is nothing new. If someone else agrees, I can file an SPI, but the CU may not take. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  23:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The JackSlash SPA also shares Caps Disease with the JackL SPA above and with the page's creator (and curiously whenever the page's creator gets blocked for disruptive editing, one of these SPAs pops up) - and also seems to share JackL's habit of copying and editing edit signatures; the edit signature appears manually constructed both because it's missing the User: field and because the timestamp for an edit at 20:21 UTC was 21:49 UTC, which was in the future and shared the same minute digits as the edit immediately above.
 * I wouldn't bother with an SPI, though - these ducks are becoming increasingly obvious and aren't going to fool the administrator who closes the AFD - unless we get a host of socks after a recreation of the page. I'm willing to AGF that the person claiming to be the subject is the subject, but obviously that hardly makes them disinterested. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as depending on what are obviously junk sources, with no suggestion that better alternatives exist. The junk sources? From an earlier, later deleted version of the article:
 * Henson has an innate ability to create a complex narrative filled with sensuality and surrealism, then capture those provocative moments on camera. Allen Henson is known for controversial layouts by incorporating social standards and politics into his Fashion shoots.
 * No source was given. But see these quotes from web pages that the article currently cites:
 * Allen Henson is known for controversial layouts by incorporating social standards and politics into his Fashion shoots. He has an innate ability to create a complex narrative filled with sensuality and surrealism, then capture those provocative moments on camera.
 * (That from here in volodaily.com.)
 * He is known for controversial layouts by incorporating social standard and politics into his fashion shoots. This has earned him recognition as a "younger Steven Meisel" by industry professionals. He has an innate ability to create a complex narrative filled with sensuality and surrealism, then capture those procavative moments on camera.
 * (That from here in juxtapoz.com.)
 * Allen Henson is known for controversial layouts by incorporating social standards and politics into his Fashion shoots. He has an innate ability to create a complex narrative filled with sensuality and surrealism, then capture those provocative moments on camera.
 * (That from here in deedspublishing.com.) Now, being known for controversial layouts by incorporating social standard/standards and politics into [one's] fashion/Fashion shoots ... I suppose that's supposed to mean something along the lines of: being known for fashion photos that are controversial because they allude to political issues or seemingly transgress social norms. (As far as it's supposed to mean anything at all. More likely it's just a word salad that's supposed to sound enticing, and the reader is not supposed to think about it.) I'd call it incompetent writing at best. That at least three of these "sources" say the same thing suggests to me that at least two of them are totally uncritical recyclers of the PR or other junk they receive. -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2017 (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.