Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Nelson (photographer)


 * 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 due to improvements. Also, the book about Nelson, and the two interviews linked at the end of the article are enough to satisfy WP:V. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 03:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Chris Nelson (photographer)

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

This was spun off, apparently, from content in Bear community or something like that, but I'm not sure it merits its own page. I tagged it for speedy, but it was contested... I brought up the following concerns on the talk page:
 * The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person- sources? A google search only turned up the politician.
 * In addition, for authors, which you've added: Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. - can you direct me to independent reviews? And Amazon.com-esque and user-submitted ones don't count. He has not so far responded to these concerns. Dåvid ƒuchs  (talk &bull; contribs) 16:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Big  top  02:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of proper sources and highly questionable notability. Furthermore, the article is written as if it was lifted straight from promotional materials and may possibly also have copywrite problems. --The Way 06:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless properly referenced and sourced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete poorly referenced and lacking assertion of importanceDogJesterExtra 18:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete major edit to Wikify Newstruck 19:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has been improved since it was nominated for deletion. --Eastmain 22:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It still suffers from a total lack of proper sources so it still needs to be deleted. --The Way 02:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Lack of sources is not a valid reason to delete an entire article. The fact that this man's work has had a book written about it seems to me to make him notable. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of sources is absolutely a valid reason to delete an article. Read the policies -- if it's not WP:Verifiable with reliable sources, then it's not appropriate.  /Blaxthos
 * No, an article must be verifiable not verified. If an article is notable, than it should be kept, and any non-sourced information removed. Read the policy before claiming you know what's in them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, nonnotable as above, fails WP:RS Cricket02 05:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Cool Hand Luke 22:34, 2 February 2007 (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.