Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Break


 * 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. –MuZemike 01:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Break

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject does not approach WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST standards. He's mostly self-published. JFHJr (㊟) 08:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment and question the fact that a photographer is mostly self-published is by the way. (Kiyoshi Suzuki was almost exclusively self-published yet nobody knowledgable would dispute his importance.) The question is: Have the books (published conventionally, by himself, or somewhere in between) been noted anywhere? It's not (directly) about any book of his, but the article in the East LA website has some substance. -- Hoary (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – I wasn't absolutely knocking SPS, but we can't base a BLP on it. His self-publications were most of what was turning up as far as any publication about the subject. As far as reliable sources go, self-publications certainly are no more reliable because he's an artist. Someone else should have said something about Break or commented on Break's own SPS. JFHJr (㊟) 17:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I hadn't been thinking of self-published sourcing. Of course you're right: sources must be disinterested. But as for self-published books (not used for sourcing), he says he has three books out at blurb.com. The last time I looked, [redlinked] Rafał Milach had two books out at blurb.com and only the promise of a third book from an apparently conventional publisher (Kehrer); but actually Kehrer, like most respectable photobook publishers, wants money from the photographer, and Milach merits a WP article on the strength of the commentary on his first blurb.com book (Black Sea of Concrete) alone. &para; On the respective merits of Break versus Milach, I'm not sure that I have a comment but am sure that this wouldn't be the right place to utter it. On their relative degree of "notability" (as the word is used within WP), I think I can say that Milach is some way ahead. -- Hoary (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks multiple WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Happy Editing! &mdash;  17:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. One of his photographs of a very wet bridge appeared within a bbc.co.uk page titled "California storms: Your stories"; the way the WP article pumps this up is laughable or rather sad, depending on who you are and what mood you're in. -- Hoary (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - appears to be non-notable, lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources, and per Hoary just above. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete serious issues with independence of sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No real notability. Vincelord (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2011 (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.