Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewen Spencer


 * 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. The snout count on this is split. (or 5-4 in favor of deletion if you count the nom) However, Tom Morris's comment concedes that he is probably notable. It's unfortunate that this started out as a probable autobiography but any POV issues can be fixed by normal editing which has partially been done. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ewen Spencer

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable self published photographer Wuh  Wuz  Dat  06:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  03:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Another sad autobio by someone not notable even taking self-aggrandizing contents as true. (I deleted the most obvious copybios and based-on-self-published-material claims.) EEng (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. A non notable self published photographer intones the nominator, who remarkably (i) describes him- or herself as "no longer very active on Wikipedia" but (ii) has already made forty or so edits today. Could the nominator be more active at Wikipedia than at a search engine? For Spencer is written up by the Guardian. (True, the Guardian is a small circulation newspaper of a minor island near one extreme of Eurasia. Yet it's a major newspaper of the internet anglosphere.) Self-published? Yes indeed -- like a number of highly notable photographers I could name. (An excellent example would be Kiyoshi Suzuki. You haven't heard of him, and want a celeb? All right then, Nobuyoshi Araki.) But not only self-published. And verifiably exhibited as well. Yes, the autobio was indeed "sad". It has competition in sadness from at least one of the comments above. -- Hoary (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC) .... with bits deleted Hoary (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, Is this AfD, or RfC? In the wise words found here; "Please comment on content, NOT on the contributor". Wuh  Wuz  Dat  15:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Further comment...and YES, I am MUCH less active than I used to be, example here. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  15:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's AfD, a fact that I was too sleepy to remember. Sorry about that! Though it doesn't negate my main point, which is that (no matter how uninterested I happen to be in photography of musical or other celebs) this chap has more than enough newspaper coverage to warrant a little article, even though he of course shouldn't have created it himself. -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete (with reservations). It's kind of on the edge: notable enough (a few good write-ups in the Grauniad) but beyond that, I don't really see that there is anything to say. As there's not really any content there beyond links to the Guardian, it probably ought not to be kept - but if someone (preferably not the subject himself) were to create a new article with some content, I think it would pass muster with notability. –Tom Morris (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The Guardian is a reliable source, that covers him, and prints his work. His work is notable enough to be found elsewhere as well.  This news article from CBC News starts off with a picture from him.   D r e a m Focus  04:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.