Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jana Cruder


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Jana Cruder

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails Notability (people). No significant coverage of Jana Cruder in independent sources found at Google News, Questia, HighBeam, ProQuest or General OneFile. There's plenty of self-generated hits at commercial galleries and social media, and some photo credits and acknowledgements, but nothing in independent sources that cover the subject in depth. Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Dengero (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Unable to find any reliable, independent references. Awards are minor and some misleading. Her linkedIn site says she won a 2003 Addy Raf award and not a 2004 Addey award. RAF stands for Rochester (New York) Area. Sounds like she is a working professional photographer. Bgwhite (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: I just added a TON of independent sources. Faustus37 (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We've talked about your hatred of WP:GNG before and your belief of no rules should apply on Wikipedia, but it is still a rule. You have to have independent, reliable references ABOUT Cruder. Having photos of hers does not pass GNG, but shows she is a working photographer. Bgwhite (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see. For "significant coverage" we have a mainstream press writeup and (more importantly) clear evidence that this individual has produced a wide body of top-level (i.e. "notable") work. For "reliable sources" I went with as close to the original source as possible. It's one thing to cite a bunch of stuff on Flickr, it's quite another to dig deeper. Is all of this "independent of the subject"? It's pretty clear the subject was published instead of did the publishing, now isn't it?


 * I have no issue with GNG. There's plenty around here that doesn't make the cut. Evidently I just have a considerably more liberal viewpoint on the matter. There's certainly no need for personal attacks. Faustus37 (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's clear these "independent sources" are only photo credits. As with Notability (books), Notability (film), Notability (music), the existence of artwork is insufficient. The artwork, photos in this case, needed to have won a major award, have charted sales, been historically significant, etc. Or the photographer has to be the subject of multiple significant articles. Photo credits alone don't cut it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * delete fails WP:CREATIVE. almost all the sources added merely confirm her photography. they are not about her as a subject. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 6 November 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.