Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai Z Feng


 * 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.  Citi Cat   ♫ 04:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Kai Z Feng

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Seemingly non-notable fashion photographer as per WP:BIO or WP:CORP. Earlier edits of article made all sorts of unsourced claims that are not verifiable by any source in the subject's 89 unique Google hits. wikipediatrix 03:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Any chance if you would recheck your google? as I get something completely different with 567 hits although some need to be screen out, it is very different from your result. THX.Chineseartlover 07:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it first says 567 (or so). Now go to the last page of hits. The total's 89 or so (and a lot of them gay porn blogs, its seems). -- Hoary 07:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It could be pointed out that those are just the hits for his name in romanized form. But there are only eleven in Chinese. I don't claim to be able to read Chinese, but even what hits there are somehow don't look impressive. Delete. -- Hoary 03:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I read Chinese and did a clean up on this page earlier. I have went into quite a few of the original refs and verified that they are either the written biographies for the photographer or magazine scans showing clearly the photographer's work and his credits. As a result I change the original writer's external links into reference. **The three comments on the article, one is an Netscape entry, which I believe is notable, the other is from China Vogue, also notable. The only less credible entry was from the Think in English, Count in Chinese website. While it is a blog, I believe it does capture the general views I read while doing the verification on the other website and have left it in the articles as is.I feel Google search is not the only criteria for Notability. The photographer's work is published in a wide selection of magazine including the reputable Vogue, Harpers, Hercules, Sunday Times, the Independent, Arena and Grazia, all boast the biggest circulation in their field. There are many photographers on Wiki who has less published work in their whole career and this guy has only been working for 1 year. Perhaps The number of hits on Google is a subjective measure because the result is subject to how the search is conducted. I noted wikipediatrix did a unique Google Serach with "Kai Z Feng which give 89 unique hit. However, if you then google on "kai z feng" you will get 580 unique hit. In addition, you will see the pages returned for the Capitalize search are less important sites on the photographers, while the un-capitalize search yield the more relevant results.In addition, the photographer is often credited as "kaizfeng" which when Google return another 696 hits. He is also known as "Kai Feng" which when google give 48,800, but this result is difficult to judge as "kai feng" is also the name of a major city in China. Also Hoary used the Japanese Google which can be misleading is not relevant as the photographer is Chinese, if you search for his name in google Hong Kong, you will get 403 hits for his name in the traditional Chinese form 馮志凱, if you then Google in Simplified Chinese you will get 253 pages in simplified Chinese Text. *It should be noted that the pages return from a google of kai z feng without the "" to specified unique search would return 472,000 hits. and the result on the first page are all about the photographer, showing that the google robot clearly recognise the combination of "kai z feng" as the photographer. Indeed this search would return the photographer's homepage, while the official name "Kai Z Feng" would not. Clearly some an area for further investigation with google.I am a relative newbie in editing although I have use wiki for a while. So if I have make any irrelevant points, please let me know if there are relevant policy documents on this subject so I can check it out. ThanksChineseartlover 05:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * one is an Netscape entry, which I believe is notable, the other is from China Vogue, also notable. You're welcome to readd both. But for the former, yes, "entry" seems the appropriate word; it looks like a mere blog entry. I deleted the China Vogue link because it was dead; but another reason would be that it wasn't actually to CV but instead was to Feng's own website. &para; I feel Google search is not the only criteria for Notability. The photographer's work is published in a wide selection of magazine including the reputable Vogue, Harpers, Hercules, Sunday Times, the Independent, Arena and Grazia Yes, Google isn't the only criterion. If you have evidence for Feng's publication in those magazines, please present it. &para; Also Hoary used the Japanese Google which can be misleading is not relevant as the photographer is Chinese, if you search for his name in google Hong Kong, you will get 403 hits for his name in the traditional Chinese form 馮志凱. Yes, that's what it says. But they all turn out to be just eleven of what Google thinks are discrete hits. Still, it's quality and not quantity that matters: if he has merely handful of reliable, impressive hits, that's enough. So, where are they? &para; I am a newbie here, how would we verify source which are on paper form. Just present the publication details. (Imagine that you're doing a university assignment; it's the same idea.) Here's an example. Note that the odd pages here and there in magazines, even if their existence is verified, are unlikely to be taken as evidence for notability. Better is evidence of books, solo exhibitions, and critical attention. Of course, this man is young and it may be unrealistic to expect books, solo exhibitions and the like. Well, no reason to push an article for him: if his article is deleted at the end of this process, that's a verdict on the article, not on him; and a few years from now, after he's become genuinely famous, he can get a very different article. -- Hoary 05:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link.I don't have the magazine, but I believe there are scan on his website. will get back to it when i have more time. do you know how long is this deletion process? I can understand this photographer is on a different levet to Tokihiro Satō, but it doesn't mean he is not notable. His list of collaborated brand and the list of celebrity seems to suggest he is notable. Also can you advise how to check for discrete hits on google? THxChineseartlover 06:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * AfD takes a week or so. The number of discrete hits: Google tells you a number in the hundreds, but then you look to see how many hits it actually bothers to list for you. -- Hoary 06:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC) edited 06:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks will try to check back later. In the meantime, I remember the original article did had some scan of the photographer's work with his credits: Independent Newspaper Magazine Cover with Top Model Gerogia Frost, Work with UK star Nick Hoult, Work with Film Star Alex pettyferAlso when i verify his fan site, there are more scans of his magazine work http://kaizfeng.spaces.live.com/. In particular, there is a whole series of work with [[Du Juan] who is probably the No 1 model in China right now:China vogue work with top model Du Juan, more from Du Juan Series, More from Du Juan Series, More from Du Juan Series, Biography in China Vogue,Close up of the same issue. On the same website, you can also see scan of his magazine work with [[georgia Frost]] who is one of the current Top Model in the UK. Coming from a related background to the fashion industry. I am aware that Vogue seldom commission minor photographer for a fashion series. I think the above should be weight against the non-notable suggestion. Chineseartlover 06:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's probably better if you work to improve the article itself (as the warning on it says, you can improve it as much as you wish, as long as you don't remove the warning); and later, after you've improved it, to announce here that you've improved it. But do note what people have said on this page about which links are acceptable and what constitutes notability: don't spend your time adding links that are likely to be deleted. -- Hoary 07:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * MORE TIME NEEDED While I didn't start the page, I did spend some thing looking through it and cleaning it up, and I think there are some materials there which I can link to the page to make it more wiki-worthy. So I won't mind doing that, but I will need a bit of time as my work is a bit heavy right now. THANKS. Chineseartlover 21:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked through the history of the page and it appears to fall under WP:CSD. The sources are blogs, and previous edits have removed most of the page because they were unreliable sources. All other information is unsourced, which reduces the page to simple self-promotion. Delete. Ajonlime 04:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did verify the source. While some of them appear in a blog site, most of them are scan of the work published by the photographer in High Street publications. I am a newbie here, how would we verify source which are on paper form. I am cleaning up another page at the moment and it seems the subject have only ONE return on google but he is broadcaster and have received award 10 years ago after his death thus making him seemingly notable. But no internet linke source to verify these info. Chineseartlover 05:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and Revert with some cleanup The photographer is unique as he appears to be the only Chinese fashion photographer ever who has been commissioned by both Vogue and Harper's Bazaar, arguably the two most credible and influential magazine in the world for High Fashion. (see Fashion photography for detail of the war between the two magazine). I do think my edited version of the page might required further clean up, eg: the external links for the magazines are not necessary, but the links to his fan site as well as the discussion forum about his work could be retained. Also I think it is relevant to keep the list of his Collaborated Brands and the Featured Celebrities & Top Models he has worked with. These are clear indication of his notability.Chineseartlover 05:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Offline sources are certainly admissible if you cite publication name, year, issue, etc., but these must be actual newspaper articles about Feng, not just instances of his work being printed and a photo credit being given to him. Notability, to a first approximation, means being discussed in the news or in academia, not having your work published. The fact of his possibly being the only Chinese fashion photographer commissioned by both Vogue and Harper's Bazaar is mildly interesting, but can't really count as the basis of notability if reliable sources haven't actually noted said fact. Basically, if someone is not discussed by reliable sources]], then pretty much any observations you make about their body of work (besides purely statistical ones) will inevitably be original research. Went through the 62 Chinese GHits (not 11) and didn't see anything that would help. cab 06:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe Google is screwy today. I clicked on the links given to us (the Chinese-interface ones) and got an ostensible 650 hits for the name in traditional script, boiling down to just 11; but apparently mere dozens of hits for the name in simplified script, a number that's hardly reduced and perhaps is indeed 62. -- Hoary 06:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have so far trace one short article on Feng but I did remember seeing something while verifying the page. here is the Vogue article. Also not sure how google work. seems to give different number with different settings. Will get back later Chineseartlover 06:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions.   —David Eppstein 17:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC) *
 * I am surprise to find this page being up for deletion again. I will scan the interviews that different magazines have done for him and upload it here. I have followed his progress since I discovered his work at the start of this year and started this page a few months a ago. Since then, he has been gathering a lot more following. Hope the committee will agree after I have upload the new articles. Please DO NOT DELETE Thanks You. Boom170 18:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * WORK IN PROGRESS I have went through some of the original text and trace some of the source of reference and made the revert as appropiate. I am in the process of checking other text and links for reference and citatin and will revert or deleted them s appropiate, please do not delete the comments from the content for the time being until the process is completed. Thanks. I have therefore removed the Cleanup tag for the time being.As I am not an expert in Fashion Photography, I have inserted a tag request for EXPERT input on the subject and may be comment on the notability of the photographer further. Thanks. Chineseartlover 07:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There are not verifiable sources to establish the notability of this photographer according to wikipedia requirements of WP:NOTABILITY. A paragraph about him in Vogue is not sufficient, nor is his name as a credit to a photograph. Tyrenius 03:25, 5 September 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.