Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Koudis

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk 14:50, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Nick_Koudis
vanity, creator of article shares name with subject; no case for notability. 128.112.24.137 04:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy. Nateji77 05:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as vanity. The fact that it's created by a user named "Koudis" makes it a pretty obvious case.  As for notability, "Nick Koudis" gets 163 unique Google hits and the website referenced has no Alexa rank at all! Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  10:57, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep.
 * Alexa rank is, as usual, no use for determining whether an individual is notable; we're not about to delete Marvin Minsky's entry just because only a few AI geeks ever visit his website.
 * We also don't delete biographical entries as vanity solely because they're created by the subject.
 * Nick Koudis is verifiable as a charter photographer for the stock library Getty Images, and his photographs are widely used. I see photo credits for Nick Koudis online at the following sites, and I didn't have to look hard:
 * Arsin Corporation, which does work for BEA, AT&T, Bank of America, and others
 * Discovery Channel
 * California Vistas website produced by McGraw-Hill
 * Could I find more? Easily, but that is enough to establish notability. --Tony Sidaway Talk  11:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup and Keep. Notable, but messy. I recognize most of those ads. RasputinAXP 17:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have too much trouble on the notability score, but the article reeks of vanity . And is anyone besides me worried about the fair use claim on those images? In any case, some of the Keep voters ought to take on a major cleanup of this piece. -- Mwanner 23:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * As author and copyright holder of all the images, I can vouch for the fair use claim. I also would like to point out, that although I did post the article about my own work, it is unbiased and factual. --Nick 23:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cleaned up the picture section a bit. Is vanity grounds for deletion if it is notable and the info is factual? I don't think it should be. Henny Clugman 01:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Voter has 2 edits, both to this VfD --Allen3 talk 14:50, August 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right-- although vanity is often cited in VfD discussions, it really shouldn't, of itself, be grounds for deletion: it's the notability that matters. "Vanity" is really a not very apt shorthand for a problem with the style of writing-- it feels like a puff piece, not an encyclopedia entry.  I'll make a stab at a re-write.  I'm still worried about the copyright issues, though.  The AMEX and Wrigley images are no problem? -- Mwanner 13:27, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - awards and Getty association speak to notability. Barnabypage 13:31, 6 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.