Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candice Farmer


 * 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 no consensus, defaulted to keep--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Candice Farmer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I see no notability, just the creation of the usual run of campaigns, and one minor award The refs are PR. Written by an acknowledged PR paid editor.  DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:GNG due to the news coverage over many years. I'm not sure what's been going on here, it was well sourced last year but someone has removed the sources and biographical info at some point. I've added some of it back. Sionk (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not demonstrate notability, only that she has had 1 exhibition, gained an enterprise scheme award, started an initiative / campaign, and worked commercially as a photographer. Unsourced claims, non-notable information and unreliable references have been removed, if they were notable they would have stood the test of scrutiny. -Lopifalko (talk)


 * Keep Per Sionk. Her work has been printed in numerous major publications, and like many photographers, including fashion, that's primarily the case - not "exhibitions" in galleries and museums. Her books and her work has been featured in plenty of reliable secondary sources. Reliable secondary sources include: (mere mention but something) (she has exhibited at the Fox Talbot Museum and her work has been featured in a PBS documentary. Anyway, appears to pass general notability guidelines to me. If the article appears so promotional, I encourage my fellow editors to improve after disapproving! :) SarahStierch (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

COMMENT per notability guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals


 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * Further evidence- Apparently she won an award (Shell Livewire, see page) but that doesn't have a source.


 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * Pass- Underwater photography. She didn't originated it but she is well known for it and is often invited for a shoot because of it. It's her specialization.


 * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * Pass- Judging by this http://www.candice.co.uk/#!celeb-gallery/c36w with Keira Knightley and Lily Cole among the important figures she has photographed for major magazines, it's notable enough. She was also featured in a PBS program (see reflist of page).


 * The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
 * Pass- The Fresh 20 project with major celeb names is an evidence of this.

Unsung Artists (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2014 (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.