Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Beames (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 13:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Josh Beames
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Promotion for non notable photographer. Getting your photo published in a daily newspaper does not make you notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Herald Sun has no depth of coverage. Has a little bit of indiscriminate local puff but that's not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography,  and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Other than photo by-lines, nothing pops up for this individual. A routine working photographer it appears. Oaktree b (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I encourage contributors to read the last AfD that went through a more detailed analysis of the sources and determined to keep the article, rather than relying on hyperbole in the nomination like "indiscriminate local puff". Duffbeerforme is a good editor but he is wrong on this one. A second AfD is a violation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is enough information to meet Wikipedia standards. Deus et lex (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I too encourage contributors to read the last AfD. There they can read an analysis that found the sourcing wanting. Deus et lex in particular should read the bit where the closer wrote no consensus and not keep. And while they are at it they should also not make accusations about non existent violations. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per 's source table at the last AfD. Subject passes GNG. W 42  21:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you read the whole discussion, the source assessment table I provided was flawed in several ways. I would probably lean delete now. –– FormalDude  (talk)  22:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete seems a run of the mill photographer. I don't regard winning a Bureau of Meteorology prize as enough to be notable in WP. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment so I've read the last AfD, the source table seems reliable, but then it gets into the long, wordy discussions I tend to avoid. PR sources/non-PR sources and the discussion around that point. Based on what I (didn't) find when I looked, still leaning !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oaktree b, which source table looks reliable? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete the only sources I can see that might help satisfy WP:GNG are all from The Standard (which seemed to also be the consensus at the first AfD), and according to GNG "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Also doesn't help that The Standard is a very local publication (specific to a town of 35,000 people). The Herald Sun articles don't constitute significant coverage, the Moyne Gazette doesn't appear to be independent from The Standard, and a Facebook page as a source definitely doesn't help establish notability. OliveYouBean (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2022 (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.