Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene Ho


 * 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. Keilana talk(recall) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Gene Ho

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

We're told that Ho is a commercial photographer. His own website suggests that he's a photographer second and the proprietor of a commercial photography company first. The scale of the company would make it unusual, though nothing else about it is obviously noteworthy. (For all I know, it got big and stayed big thanks to excellent work, sensibly priced; and Ho himself is first among equals of first-rate photographers. I'm not criticizing either the company's work or his.) The problem is rather that this article has been unsourced for ten months, and obviously so. People have fiddled with it during that time, but they haven't touched the Sez who? templates with which it's liberally splattered. Not verifiable. -- Hoary (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per well argued nomination. Subject would fail WP:BLP; scores 216 Ghits, the vast majority are directory entries. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I went through the Google hits, and while most of the first ones to come up were directed to his studio, others confirmed that he is a published author on the subject of photography, and has a strong connection to a technical college ... in addition to what appear to be "numerous celebrity clients." I am a little shocked that there is not more information, but if I am reading this right, deletion is not the proper way to get something cleaned up.  What I am concerned about with the sources that I did find:  Do they qualify as genuine enough secondary sources to establish notability? LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Deletion is indeed not the proper way to get something cleaned up, but it is an appropriate way of dealing with articles that look as if they'll never been cleaned up. &para; Celebs: north America is crawling with them. &para; Notability as a photographer: Has he had any notable solo exhibitions, or are there books devoted to his works? &para; Do your sources qualify? For what my own comments on their suitability would be worth, I can't make those comments till I see what the sources are. Why not edit the article to make it more credible, or at least specify the sources here? -- Hoary (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not critical of this article being up for deletion. I am not critical of anything here.  I find it odd that there seems to be a lot more out there on him than his own website seems to imply (the opposite of a vanity page?).  I lack the expertise in photography to really judge if the sources that are out there are legit sources.  I could see it either way.  I also agree:  10 months is a long time to go without some sourcing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * weak keep as per LonelyBeacon, and considering there is no deadline. --Arcanios (talk) 12:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is indeed no deadline. But ten months have gone by as a few editors have made changes here and there without sourcing the material. How much time is needed for this? Or could it be that there are no sources? Even Ho's own website says almost nothing about him. (Incidentally, WP:DEADLINE is a mere essay, not a guideline.) -- Hoary (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * [User:Arcanios|Arcanios]], my read of there is no deadline leads me to the opposite conclusion as you. To me, the essay is clearly saying "to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established" and to work on an "article in your userspace or scratchpad until you have the best possible article, fully referenced, a masterpiece of neutrality".  That process did not take place here. Moreover, if we are to read this essay as a caution to wait before deleting an article, as you suggest, how long should we wait? In my opinion, this article has been given plenty of time to improve.  The first PROD request was made in November 2006 and a second request was made in Feb. 2007. My request for sources was posted in Feb 2007, and little progress has been made.  TheMindsEye (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Another small point: "weak keep as per LonelyBeacon" is slightly odd, as LonelyBeacon is neutral. -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per the opposing arguments of the three editors above. As it stands the article has no third-party sources and unless there's proof of multiple non-trivial reliable published sources, we should just delete it.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:33, 24 December 2007 (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.