Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Elliott


 * 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Nick Elliott

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

Subject is not notable, and most of the content seems to have been added by Elliot's "Press Office" in violation of COI JeffUK (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Would like comments from more established editors before determining the consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: I nominated this page earlier in the year for deletion for the same reasons stated.
 * The page was clearly constructed by Nick Elliott and/or his PR company (NickElliottInfo) and although the interest was declared at the onset of the page creation, there is a clear conflict of interest. There have been multiple additions by NickElliottInfo written for promotional gain, which have been identified and deleted by Wiki users to correct this.
 * Although, there are a number of sources in the media, these are very clearly a result of the work of a PR company, who have written, negotiated, published, and potentially paid for, the coverage. The independence of the journalism is questionable. Many of the sources cited are actually hosted on NickElliott.info - Nick Elliott’s self published Press Office.
 * There is no significant evidence of notability. Nick Elliott does not appear to have achieved anything significant beyond that of any other commercial photographer. Libran Weighting (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC) — Libran Weighting (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Blocked sock, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TheTaskman). Spicy (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Many hits on a politician with his name, none for a photographer, Gnews, GNewspapers, nothing found. COI also tells me it's not reliable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article seems to be either an autobiography or a creation from a PR agent, thus I agree with the COI claims. However when checking the existing sourcing (even before an online BEFORE search) it is clear to me that this commercial photographer has had enough significant coverage WP:SIGCOV to establish notability per WP:GNG. They do not meet WP:NARTIST but that is not a reason for deletion. There has been significant coverage in multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time to meet our general notability guideline. Netherzone (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You can be forgiven for not being familiar with the Rutland Times, 'Norfolk Rocks' and Lynn News. They are all tiny local publications/newsletters bordering on self-published; there may be significant coverage but not from reliable sources and not even necessarily independent. He's a local personality, that doesn't make him notable. JeffUK (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Significant coverage in the media, whether worthy press or not, does not support notability. From the sources, it looks like this is down to the skills of a good Public Relations company in securing it or being in the “right place at the right time”. The content of the stories published is definitely promotional rather than newsworthy and a lot of the information in the page is supported by quotes from Nick Elliott himself rather than third parties.  TheTaskman (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC) — TheTaskman (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Music,  and Visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - There may be value in reviewing this that was accepted through the AfC process.  GoingBatty (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete In my view, this article just scrapes past the general notability guideline (given that notability is not temporary). I have arrived at this view with some hesitation because many of the sources are in effect local papers or niche magazines and perhaps not all are independent. But the GNG is not concerned with geographic scope, they number, and they do cover the subject in some detail. This all said, I have concerns that the essential purpose of the article is for promotion rather than as coverage of a notable individual. This is perhaps not surprising given there has been a conflicted editor involved along the way. Given: (1) the subject's marginal notability; (2) the tendency of the article to conflate/equate the notability of the individuals supposedly photographed by/who worked with the subject, with notability of the subject; (3) the promotional nature of the article, including in its genesis (containing claims like "very successful career"); leads me to form the view, in totality, that deletion is appropriate. Thanks to for the helpful suggestion of reviewing the approved AFC draft. Local Variable (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NARTIST as there are multiple independent references which address the subject or his work “directly and in detail”. Yes there are COI and PROMO issues that need fixing, but that is not what AFD is for per WP:DINC. We have better ways to address those problems using the editorial process and relevant community resources. 4meter4 (talk) 07:30, 25 June 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.