Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Needleman (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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

David Needleman (photographer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable photographer who fails WP:CREATIVE. Most of the citations don't even contain passing mentions of Needleman—just his name in a photo credit. The best sources are this, which consists entirely of an interview with no original reporting, and this, a profile from a small show he exhibited at. The only other decent source I could find through Google was this—not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep we have enough here to show that he passes WP:CREATIVE. His work has been featured in major media. He would appear important enough as a photographer that he gets the call to photograph major stars. We have enough here for WP:BARE Lightburst (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not convinced by this rationale. While being published in major media might indicate a pass of WP:CREATIVE criterion 3, we also need to take into account the second part of the criterion: "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Given the lack of independent reviews of Needleman's work and lack of representation in major exhibitions and museums, I don't think WP:CREATIVE is met in this case. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That a commercial photographer's work has been published isn't sufficient to establish notability. If we were to accept that reasoning, then all published journalists, writers, photographers and illustrators would be notable. We need to see evidence that work about David Needleman has been published, not simply work by David Needleman. Pburka (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:CREATIVE is a guideline. I think some other editors will be along soon to render an opinion. Lightburst (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete A search found no significant coverage of the subject. 14 of the 16 article sources are there largely to confirm that he has done one photo job or another (photographed for X, photographed for Y). This is threfore a fail of all our notability guidelines, as in-depth coverage does not exist in multiple reliable sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This guy is clearly a prominent and successful photographer, but he is not notable by the Wikipedia definition in WP:GNG. The fact that he photographs high profile figures/events does not make him notable (notability is not inheritable). We have plenty of sources that were created by him (photo credits on his work) but essentially no sources about him -- the kind of material that we would need in order to write a high quality biography with verifiable details. Michepman (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails each of the four criteria of WP:CREATIVE; fails WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Heavily refbombed article that was created by an editor who repeatedly dodged requests to disclose COI/UPE due to promotional editing concerns. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SIGCOV. I really would love to keep this, but the sources I see are photographs by him, and don't even discuss him. FWIW, we're three or four degrees of separation via his husband, Evan, and his friend Todd. Bearian (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2020 (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.