Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moses Hacmon (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 no consensus. The !votes are all based in policy; in borderline cases there can be genuine disagreement about whether a specific source counts toward GNG, and that seems to be the case here. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Moses Hacmon
AfDs for this article:


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

I don't see any way this passes WP:NBASIC. Almost all the coverage is trivial or based on his association with legitimately notable subjects. ––FormalDude (talk)  00:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Should get some more input first Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 00:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography,  and Israel. ––FormalDude  (talk)  00:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Half of the sources listed, though reliable, are about his fiancée. A standard Google search only references him in articles about her. Justwatchmee (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Notable for his photography. Has an article in Wired, and several other sources, for his work. BogLogs (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. No claim of notability. My searches only found tabloid coverage, mostly about his partner. CT55555 (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * keep weak keep in depth coverage by Wired (magazine) is sufficient in addition to field-specific journals/magazines demonstrating multiple independent RS. There is enough coverage independent of his wife. --hroest 04:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Care to explain how one single article from Wired qualifies as "multiple"? Because none of the other sources contain significant coverage. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  02:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, I count three that seem to be mainly about him with the Wired one the in-depth article:, , . It is clear that Wired is independent and reputable and Designboom is independent and apparently The online magazine was named one of the top 100 design influencers in the world by Time magazine, (per WP) while VoyageLA seems more like a local city guide but still independent and has an in-depth interview. I think that he just passes WP:GNG but probably not WP:ARTIST according to the criteria laid out there (unless this water art can be considered such a novel concept -- while novel indeed it does not seem to garner much take up or critical reception). In light of this have changed my vote to weak keep. --hroest 15:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep the article needs revision since it relies too heavily on articles about his fiancé, but I see sufficient in-depth coverage of his work (https://www.wired.com/2013/08/these-stunning-portraits-show-water-like-youve-never-seen-it-before/) and (https://www.designboom.com/art/hotographic-captures-of-water-in-motion-by-moses-hacmon/) plus a detailed interview (http://voyagela.com/interview/meet-moses-hacmon-faces-water-inglewood/) and plenty of lower level coverage of his art (https://www.vice.com/en/article/z4yjpe/nanoparticle-film-captures-movement-of-water), https://www.vice.com/en/article/z4yjpe/nanoparticle-film-captures-movement-of-water), etc etc. I’m not persuaded he’s not a notable artist under WP policy. Article needs revision, not deletion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is a BLP with no significant independent reliable sourcing covering the subject. It may be reasonably argued the technique has received some coverage, but I agree with the nominator this article is sourced entirely with trivia and tabloid coverage which does not significantly cover this BLP. VoyageLA is an interview, and so doesn't count as independent sigcov per BLP. Notability isn't inherited from notable associates. I don't think anybody's mentioned this article was created by a SPA User:Anotheraccount who coincidentally uploaded the image too. IMHO this appears to be an autobiography maintenanced by IPs. BusterD (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2023 (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.