Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Joseph (photographer)


 * 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. I will not SALT this, but if it is recreated that can be considered. The consensus is that although he may be locally famous, he does not yet meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael Joseph (photographer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Subject does not appear to meet notability requirements. Many of the sources being used are simply local newspaper calendar entries. Others are self-published or not independent (publisher promo pages). Subject runs his own publishing company and many, if not all, of his works are self-published. Article was originally created by a hired promoter whose website advertises "viral promotions". A series of socks continues to repeatedly give the article a promotional tone, while of course claiming not to be the same hired promoter that they know nothing about except that he was hired to write the article (and how do they know that?) Yworo (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTFACEBOOK and nom. Likeminas (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  —Hoary (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  —Hoary (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  —Hoary (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Elaboration The Wikipedia activities of the multinamed author are written up here. The company describes itself here and, if you happen to be an admin, also here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - he is a locally famous artist, but not notable. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The efforts made on WP to advertise this photographer/mogul have been amusing but are mild compared with those made on behalf of others (try this or this). Meanwhile he does indeed seem to have a local notability, as evidenced here for example. &para; Plus it's fascinating, though not necessarily as originally intended. In God We Trust, first published as A Gift of Peace, turned into We the People, "covered with over 18,000 sentiments inscribed with colorful ink pens" -- ah, only in America! Will he, won't he, donate it to the Smithsonian? -- Hoary (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Sheesh! Just rip it up and start again. This article has been thoroughly poisoned, and its waters muddied, by the various issues of sockpuppetry. Try as I might, I can't see that the subject is sufficiently notable, with the existing sources. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's rather awkward. If you're in the mood to start it again any time very soon, then feel free to rip it up and start it again, and change your vote to "keep". If it were deleted here, then a subsequent restart, even an innocent and disinterested one, could well be speedily deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well-done article about an accomplished artist. Carrite (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete on principle and salt. The Wikipedia is not be abused in this manner, and we cannot reward this kind of behavior, period. This is an important principle and if not adhered to will cause proximate harm to the reputation of the Wikipedia. It already has sucked up man-hours of resources. Delete under WP:IAR if necessary, but delete. Herostratus (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)IT
 * 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.