Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Benett


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 14:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Dave Benett

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested A7 speedy, subject appears to have won a couple industry awards... Tawker (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Borderline notability at best--very mionor award. But certainly clear promotionalism. Not enough for G11, because there is some factual material, but this is not an acceptable encyclopedia article.  DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - The question here isn't whether this piece is was icky and promotional — it seems seemed to be. Nor is it whether the subject passes some sort of Special Notability "low bar" for having won this award or that. The question is whether or not sufficient independently published sources exist, dealing substantially with the subject, to source out a proper encyclopedic biography — now or in the future. When one keeps one's eye on the ball, that does seem to be the case here... See the footnotes showing, like THIS, for instance. Passes GNG. Needs work. No: needs LOTS of work... Carrite (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have pared away a lot of the bullshit and put the piece into more acceptable form. This is a really hard subject to Google search since he is an A-list Getty Images staffer and his photo credits appear many thousands of times around the internet. Also: would some admin kindly fix the capitalization of the surname in the title. Thanks, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Delete none of the sources is both independent and in depth. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep: This is a borderline case, but I feel the Buenos Aires Herald article combined with the UK Editor's Guild award are enough for the subject to pass notability. SPattalk 01:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Definitely borderline, but the Picture Editors' Guild award seems to be a pretty big deal with a lot of press attention, and the Buenos Aires Herald is a nice source. There are probably therefore additional sources out there if we knew where to look. Moswento talky 08:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I disagree that the Picture Editor'd Guild Award is a big deal. Seems like a local award without much credo outside of picture editing on a glance at the award. Subject would therefore fail the notability test in my opinion. Dragonfire X (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The award has been covered in the Huffington Post, BBC News, The Independent, The Guardian, The Metro, MSN News - all mainstream sources, in addition to specialist publications such as the British Journal of Photography. Moswento talky 11:24, 24 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.