Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aubrey Wade


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 22:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Aubrey Wade

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Extensive and specific PROD massremoved yet it had the exact and specified concerns in that there are no substantial claims of notability, there's no inherited notability from simply having some art appearances and features, and I noted I not only found nothing better, but that's because this career is not actually advanced yet to come close to it. SwisterTwister  talk  05:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – I deprodded the article, but it was not "massremoved". These WP:ASPERSIONS need to immediately stop, because they are uncivil in nature and suggest bad faith. My edits are educated, and are based upon source searches and other variables. For example, when I deprodded, I left the following rationale, "Subject has been featured in the British Journal of Photography per a preview page on the website, but cannot access the source. However, this suggests potential notability. Declined prod." (diff). Stop casting aspersions. North America1000 05:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I state the concerns because they apply considering the PROD remover has literally removed over 2 dozen of my PRODs today alone and within minutes of each other. Therefore it's relevant to state this is why we are therefore at AfD now. SwisterTwister   talk  06:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – I routinely patrol prods listed at Category:All articles proposed for deletion. The nominator proposes a great deal of articles for deletion using prod. Focus on content, not contributors. The casting of WP:ASPERSIONS provides nothing regarding the subject's potential notability or lack thereof. North America1000 06:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment to closer - It is relevant, however, there's a noticeable comparison of my PRODs quickly being removed, especially when they are random, which is otherwise only accessible by visiting my own contribs logs. Therefore they are bad-faith removals if a user has in fact been targeted as such by this. SwisterTwister   talk  06:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom a WP:BEFORE shows no RSes actually about the subject. And Northamerica1000, if you don't want aspersions cast on your behaviour then it helps not to provide substance for such by querulous behaviour around deletion issues, as multiple users have noted you being in the past week or two. Please cool it - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I declined a prod. This is allowed, and does not constitute any type of misbehavior whatsoever. See WP:DEPROD for more information. North America1000 10:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:HOUNDING is precisely doing things that are technically allowable in a harassing manner. You're an admin, you should know better than this - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * None of my actions regarding this article were deviant. I deprodded an article listed at Category:All articles proposed for deletion. Again, this is allowed. I have also deprodded articles proposed by other users today, which were listed at said category. Please try to assume good faith. North America1000 10:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Comment – Here are some sources that I based the deprodding upon, which provided a suggestion of notability. North America1000 10:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * – British Journal of Photography. Provides a short synopsis of an article published in the journal.
 * – short article in The Guardian
 * – Global Citizen (unsure about the reliability)
 * Comment. He won a Photo Imaging Council Award in 2002/3 (confirmed in a press release from the PIC which bizarrely I can't add a link to due to overzealous blacklisting) - not sure how prestigious that is. I found the issue of British Journal of Photography at issuu but unfortunately it doesn't include the part of the magazine that the website mentions includes coverage of Wade. Clearly an accomplished and widely published photographer, but I think we would need to identify more coverage to keep it. Given that prod is there for uncontroversial deletions only, I think removing the prod based on finding evidence of coverage was reasonable. --Michig (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment – The availability of sources online is not necessarily an absolute indicator of notability, but as it stands, not much is actually available online. Perhaps other offline sources are available. It comes across that the subject could possibly meet WP:CREATIVE, but without access to sources, it's unable to be discerned . North America1000 11:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * keep The article fails to clearly demonstrate notability, but turning up sources since convinces me that it's justified. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * keep Added prominent articles in Die Zeit (Hamburg) and CNN (Atlanta). Obviously he is pretty prominent.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The references are not about him. They're in connection with one topical book of photographs,and the interest is inthe topic, not the photographs.  DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The photographs are appearing unusually often: Guardian. And he's interviewed here. -- Hoary (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Request. Could SwisterTwister please rephrase the nomination? I don't understand it. (What's "extensive and specific" about the PROD? What does "this career is not actually advanced yet to come close to it" mean?) In the meantime, I note that Wade is a member of the Panos Network, quite a distinction for a photographer. -- Hoary (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, sources, including those added since the beginning of the AfD, seem to me to meet GNG. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic   Nightfury  07:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The asserted significant reference in Die Zeit is a credit for a photograph. The BJP article is an article by him. Where's the required substantial commentary?  DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wade's project, No Stranger Place, certainly gets a lot of significant coverage, as does Conciliation Resources and to a lesser degree the movie Talking Borders made by C-R with Wade as major player. In both cases, the sources suggest notability of the project more than of Wade, so it may be suggested that Wade should not inherit notability from his associations. However, I'm hesitant to accept that argument when someone is active in multiple notable projects - one could imagine each of those projects having articles and an article on Wade existing if, for no other reason, to connect those articles. We usually look for print resources, but the interview on FM4 is definitely about him and his role in No Stranger Place, not simply about the project itself. So my count is one in depth piece about Wade (the FM4 interview) and multiple in depth mentions of multiple independent (although I'm not sure that the two main projects here are completely independent) works in which he has played a key role. I don't know much about FM4, perhaps it is not reliable enough and/or an interview is too primary to count in some people's minds.Smmurphy(Talk) 16:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: DGG, you say "The BJP article is an article by him. Where's the required substantial commentary?" but this is in fact a 4 page article written by Izabela Radwanska Zhang and overwhelmingly about Wade and the project. It is made up of exactly 50% writing and 50% photographs, and very much about the development of Wade's project as well as it is about the families and refugees he photographed, and to a lesser extent about UNHCR and other organisations who came on board to Wade's project as it developed. It includes both Zhang's commentary on Wade and the project, and quotes from Wade -Lopifalko (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Subject meets WP:CREATIVE#3 for creating a well-known work which has been primary subject of multiple independent reliable sources. Sources:, , undefined, undefined, (German), (German). Anup   [Talk]  04:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: clearly meets WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets criteria #3 of WP:CREATIVE. Struck part of my comment above. North America1000 13:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, thanks to good source-gnoming by various contributors and to very recent improvements by Lopifalko. -- Hoary (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: His medium appears to be photography projects with multi media dimensions, such as exhibitions and web, and in the case of at least one, No Stranger Place, he seems to be notably successful in that field. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2016 (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.