Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Summerton


 * 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. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Emma Summerton

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not notable. Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:CREATIVE. May also fail WP:PROMO Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is apparently some sort of spam or self promotion, yes.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 02:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, insufficient sources to prove notability. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.--TrustMeTHROW! 03:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC) – User is a blocked sock puppet. Striking !vote  Jujutacular  T · C 19:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  —Jenafalt (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This photographer does fail WP:CREATIVE, but I believe is notable given the large number of citations of her photography from a wide range of sources. A simple google search and a google news search bring up lots of hits on her and she seems to have collaborated in more than a cursory way with a large number of magazines and fashion houses. She is notable as a photographer, but not a creative one.  I have added a few of the sources I turned up and will try to add some more later. Jenafalt (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. She's a notable fashion photographer; as Jenafalt as demonstrated, there are more than enough sources to prove notability here. Rebecca (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Squeaks by with adequate sources, as per Rebecca's observation. Warrah (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep a pro photographer with such a wide resume, including editorial work for Vogue and the like, is certainly notable. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I am persuaded by the keep arguments. Any POV/spam concerns should be addressed through editing.  Those, however, are editing issues, and I am persuaded that the subject merits inclusion.   Cocytus   [»talk«]  00:14, 7 February 2010 (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.