Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Chase


 * 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. Consensus is that the subject fails relevant notability standards, none but article creator advocates keeping article. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Don Chase

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insufficient evidence of notability. This is not a case of a new contributor who has not been through this process before; in the absence of indpendent references, I reluctantly feel I have to start a deletion debate. Deb (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG, google search provides no editorial coverage at all, sorry.--Nixie9 (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article is backed up with two online independent citations (both were located by Google!);
 * Citation 1) Herald-Leader Newspaper, Gloversville, NY (see full text of the article that appeared in the newspaper on November 9, 2009) (see link, it has been placed on the article page "Don Chase"). Article in Wikipedia relies on this newspaper article the most, but was not copied. Text that appears in Wikipedia is original.


 * Citation #2) Independent write-up about the exhibit consisting of 165 photos displayed during the month of December 2010 at the Fort Worth Community Art Center. (see link, it has been placed on the article page "Don Chase") plus the photographer's own website.
 * This artist is notable, as you can see from above two citations.
 * Please refer to the two independent online - Google found citations above. "RichardFoster1 (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)RichardFoster1
 * Can I refer you to the notability criteria for creative professionals? The subject of this article doesn't seem to come anywhere near. Deb (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * How does that relate to Google's inability to bring back the results? Is it perhaps that you have not dug deep enough past page 1 of hits? Sorry, but the function of an art historian is to make available material that otherwise is not easily found or assembled.

This artist has made a contribution to the genre of Street photography as a teenager before he was seventeen. That seems to have been forgotten. Are you suggesting the content needs to be expanded. Please explain. Furthermore, please check item #3 in the notability guidelines, This is a situation of an artist who has simply not come up on the radar earlier in a big way. He has shown his work and he has received coverage from independent sources for each of the shows. Our job is to be tolerant of various quirks in the road and not act as if we're deciding on one more page in a book to be printed and it will cost too much to print that page. So ease up. And let's be grown up about it. He deserves the article if you saw the work which I had at his retrospective in Fort Worth. I intend to upload 2-3 of his images as soon as he sends it. RichardFoster1 (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)RichardFoster1
 * NOT. The artist has to get recognized and written about by reliable sources before we can do it. You are welcome to upload images, but please ensure they will be under a free license. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I see no indication of notability - next to no reliable sources discussing him. Until such a time that the coverage is improved, this fails notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Coverage is from local sources only. 1292simon (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. You have ignored my previous posts, citations and independent notations about Don Chase. Please respond to my definite 2 notations. The article in the Leader Herald Newspaper from 2009 was used as the primary source for my article. I would appreciate it if you would not continue to ignore this and the other viable sources that give this artist the credentials to have an article about him appear in the pages of this site. Our exchange was read by a close friend and her comment was, "What has he got against this Don Chase photographer? Is he some kind of sensor?"  So in the interest of our intelligent audience please stop from this lack of response and address yourself to the facts.  Thank you.RichardFoster1 (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)RichardFoster1
 * At the risk of sounding like I really care whether Don Chase goes or stays, let me spell this out for you. The fact that this man has had articles about his exhibition in the local press means very little.  Frankly, I've had far more articles about myself in local papers, and I have more google hits, but that doesn't make me notable.  You've had the guidelines explained to you several times on your talk page as a result of other articles you've created or contributed to that have similar notability issues, but you don't seem to have grasped what was being pointed out to you.  In order to avoid this kind of thing happening to you repeatedly, you need to look at the guidelines in some detail and maybe read through some previous deletion discussions.  I suggest that you go to the relevant pages, particularly WP:ARTIST, and read it again in order to understand what makes a person notable.  You could also have a look at Citing sources and Identifying reliable sources.  Deb (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Richard, my vote was for similar reasons to Deb's. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

1. A daily newspaper---plain and simple! Please see for yourself (front page story). 2. A site of the Fort Worth Community Art Museum. It's operated by the curators of the exhibition hall.
 * Keep. I didn't have to defend my thesis as hard. But here it for whatever it's worth: I made the correction in the formatting of the article's External Sources, Which I believe are what they are. credible external sources, for instance:

I therefore am going to hold on my opinion, after reading the Wikipedia guidelines and reviewing the veracity of both sources. The guidelines clearly state that the source must be external and credible.

Thank you, RichardFoster1 (talk)RichardFoster1
 * Comment - RichardFoster1 has !voted Keep 3 times. Your enthusiasm is noted and appreciated, but is there a Conflict of Interest?--Nixie9 (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2012 (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.