Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Hampden-White


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Colin Hampden-White

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

One of the most prominent features of this page is the claim that the subject of the page, a Mr.C.Hamden-White, has an apparent right to use the title 'Sir', indicating that he has at some time been awarded a Britsh Knighthood. After looking into the matter as thoroughly as is reasonably possible I have not been able to fing any evidence of any kind to substantiate this claim nor, it should be added, to the claim that his wife is entitled to be addressed as 'Lady'. In particular, on the web-site of the 'Rebecca Hossack Art Gallery' which would appear to be a bona-fide representative of him in some of his professional work, no claim is made to any such Knighthood either on the page where his name is first presented or on the page giving his 'curriculm vitae'.

Once this aspect of Mr.Hampden-White's identity is removed I cannot see any other substantial reason why the page should be in Wikipedia. It would appear to have been created for the sole purpose of promoting the professional career of its subject.

In addition to this I would suggest that the deletion of this page should go ahead for a related reason. Now that the page has been created, and added to, the name of Mr.Hampden White, complete with its apparently fictitious title, is being posted onto other Wikipedia pages - for example those of both the school and the university which the page claims that he attended. In effect the first Wikipedia page is been used as a source of reference and authority for the others. The fiction is being repeated over and over. CtznofRvna (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep I have to question the good faith of this nomination. Leaving aside the issue of the knighthood, which can be deleted from the article if there are no sources to support it, this artist is clearly notable. As is oft said in AfD discussions, AfD is not appropriate where clean up or a little rewriting is appropriate. (Disclaimer: I have helped with the formatting of this article since it was first created). ukexpat (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above comment. Also, AFD discussions need to be for articles that need major help not ones that need a few minor edits to be fixed. Another thing, this artist is definetly notable. Somebody please close this AFD! Hairy  Perry  15:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The title is of course irrelevant to notability one way or another. But I see no evidence that he meets the requirements for creative artists. The photography has won no awards--those mentioned in the article are minor awards for films, for films that used some of his still photography--they are not awards for his work,and he does not have the major responsibility for the film--the producer & director do. I see no major exhibitions. I see nothing published about his life or work except the gallery announcements for his exhibitions. There's a local news story for a local exhibition he curated, but that isn't notability.  None of his work is in museums or major private collections. I am surprised that anyone would claim notability, or the suggestion that Wikipedia should accept this self-advertising with essentially no 3rd party references- .    DGG (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If DGG is satisfied that the article should go, that's enough for me. Stifle (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I believe that having his work exhibited in multiple independent galleries is sufficient to establish notability. And his newspaper work (I'm not sure how to judge notability of this, but the fact his work has featured in top-rank national publications must mean something) should not be overlooked, either. JulesH (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete DGG's arguments are quite persuasive. He's a photographer, but is he notable? Not to mention the promotional quality of the article itself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is not inherited -- being still-photographer for some films that may have been notable does not make him notable. For a photographer, the most likely relevant criterion of WP:CREATIVE is "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" and he does not seem to pass that standard. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - this article may have been created by Mr Hampden-White. I can find no reference to him being a knight at all, having checked the London Gazette and honours lists, and he's got to be in very high class society to get married at Wesminster Abbey. The article was created by a user named 'Colari', which happens to be an aliasColin uses: see . Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a tough one. The article needs MAJOR clean up and netrality.  Some of the references don't reference the fact (e.g a map to the gallery is not evidance he had a major exibit there).  His own web site doesnt count. But, however bad the article, this is not a reason to delete.  The question is what will the result be after all the cleanup? The fact is there is not enough left.  This chap is a normal hard working photographer.  Not a notable one.  Having a picture 'he took' in the Times is not the same as having 'his' picture in the Times.  His name mentioned on a gallery list is not the same as a feature article about him. Frustration at a poor article aside, this is a non notable photographer.Obina (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I believe that the title is a very old family title and is inherited. The Hampden family have been in England since around 1015 ad. I am an aqauintance and also happen to know that after his wedding at Westminster Abbey, his reception was held in The House of Lords which was sponsored by Baroness Thornton ( Labour peer ). One would hardly think that he is a fake with that type of support. On the matter of notability as a photographer; The Facing East project (which there is a link to) is to be exhibited in January. This is listed on the homepage of the site. He has also not just had the odd photograph in the national and international press. He has been consistantly published since 2001. As a matter of interest he is also part of the DA! Collective and has work exhibited there at the moment. He only started to go down the fine art route this year (May), got a gallery by June, was exhibiting very soon after that, has already had work on Cork Street. I think this is a photographer of new notability and one would imagine the page on him will grow and grow quickly, and therefore shouldn't be deleted. If it is writed badly then re-write it. Lastly, why not simply ask him the questions, he can be contacted through his website. I'm sure it helps his PR as does many an article, but as long as it is truthful and as it goes along the good and the bad of his fine art career are listed who can complain? I know that he knows the main writer of the piece as he has pased on info and images to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.59.109 (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)  — 79.72.59.10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. It is my understanding that knighthoods are not inherited in British law. Additionally, while earning a knighthood himself would likely indicate some level of notability, inheriting a low-level heritable title (say baronet) would not. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment His family's notability does not make him notable. In terms of the evidence of having a photo or 2 in a gallery, this could lead to notability.  But it hasn't yet.  After there is, for example, a feature on him in the Times (or a photo magazine for that matter) because of these photos, then we can summarize this here.  But it is not for us to judge that these photos will make him notable - it is non trivial mentions in independent 3rd party sources. (And sorry but is 'new notablity' a synonym for 'not yet notable')Obina (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Any delete position DGG carries significant weight. Not that it is needed, but ... zero Google news, books, and scholar hits, but numerous Google web hits usually means either the Wikipedia article is named incorrectly or the topic likely lacks enough Wikipedia reliable source material to maintain an independent article on the topic and that Wikipedia is next on this list of places to promote the topic. Most telling is that Colin Hampden-White obviously is important and has done significant things, yet no independent third-party source has chosen to write about his life in sufficient detail. I also find it amazing that professional photographer Colin Hampden-White would allow ten images in which he owns to be freely posted on Wikipedia in the above article so that others can take them and use then without paying him. Comment A more fitting topic may have been Artwork of Colin Hampden-White which would have different needs than those of a Wikipedia biography. -- Suntag  ☼  17:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC
 * Note The name 'Colin Hampden-White', with its additional title, was placed on the page for Downside School by user Colari on 6 July 2008. The title, but not the name, was removed by a different user (Cjc13) on 20 November 2008 with the comment 'no reference found' included in the edit summary. CtznofRvna (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - we have evidence he is a working photographer, but we have no evidence that he is a notable photographer -- Whpq (talk) 20:50, 25 November 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.