Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Meers


 * 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   keep.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 03:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick Meers

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Notability. From the article, it seems it's just a good photographer doing his work. Main claim of notability is that "The National Trust holds many of his photographs", but it unfortunately goes unsourced. Having "produced photographs for over 30 books" doesn't seems astonishing. Good photographer? Yes. Notable? Not from what is said on the article. Damiens .rf 15:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. With 30+ published books to his name (including on the front cover as a co-author, not just as a contributor), I believe he is notable and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that it's not that he have written 30+ books. It's that his photographs have been used in 30+ books, and I don't think this is enough to make a professional photographer notable. --Damiens .rf 18:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of the books (e.g., the books listed in the article) are books where he is a co-author, not just a contributor. There is a big difference. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have added a reference for the National Trust. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it notable? The National Trust holds many photographs of many artist. --Damiens .rf 18:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You implicitly suggested that it be sourced (see above) and references are always helpful for verifiability. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This photographer seems to be notable as demonstrated by the large number of books of his photography he has published and which are widely available through online bookstores such as Barnes and Noble and Amazon. He has not just provided the photography for a book - he is one of the authors and the books are about his photography - there is a big difference.  There is also press coverage of his books: see  and  Jenafalt (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. At present I am dubious over the sources being used here. A search of amazon or barnes & noble does not show that someone is notable, particularly when you look at the sales ranks of the books. It may be an indication of notability, but it doesn't meet any of the recommendations of WP:CREATIVE. Likewise, having taken some pictures for the National Trust website may be an indication of notability but does not prove it. The basic problem at that moment is that there is no reliable independent source for biographical information about the person. If there are more reviews of his work, or if it can be shown that he is widely referenced in photography circles then we might get close to shpowing WP:N. I'm willing to be convinced, but at the moment I'm not seeing it. Quantpole (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I believe WP:CREATIVE #3 applies. There is a body of work with multiple reviews. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I'm willing to be convinced, but at the moment there is a review of about 4 sentences from the independent, and one hidden behind a pay wall (and neither are even used as references for any text in the article, so I have no idea how in depth the chicago tribune review is). Please, if there are multiple reviews, then either add them to the article or stick them here so they can be assessed. Quantpole (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Google news search up top shows articles mentioning him and his photographs.   D r e a m Focus  00:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomination: Having "produced photographs for over 30 books" doesn't seems astonishing. Good photographer? Yes. Notable? Not from what is said on the article. How true, how very true. Meers' photographs are not in the permanent collection of the V&A (a large photographic collection that's conveniently searchable online). They may well not be in any other museum or art collection either. No Turner Prize nomination for Nick. The highest price at abebooks.com right now for one of his books is $100 (cf $7500 for Tillmans and $20,220 for Cartier-Bresson). Not even any space on my shelves for his books. He's not an artiste but a highly competent craftsman, serving Weidenfeld & Nicolson and the National Trust and others with what they and the public want. (And it's not bad either; cf the luridly colored, saccharine landscapes of some great, great photographic landscape hacks who have companies sell their stuff by the square metre.) But anyway, he's not notable. Neither, I dare say, are most of the thousands of actors and the like who have articles in Wikipedia. But just as Wikipedia doesn't limit its thespian coverage to the conventionally great (Jean Gabin), the great "characters" (Shelley Duvall), and the mere heart-throbs (Keanu Reeves), but instead allows squillions of articles (mostly poorly sourced, it must be said) on entirely humdrum actors, and does so to the general benefit of the interested public, so Wikipedia would be better if it had many more modest, well sourced articles on workmanlike photographers. Producing photographs for over 30 books is not astonishing, but neither is it easy. I can't be bothered to examine the recent history of this article, but as it is now it deserves to stay; indeed, I wish there were more like it. Keep. -- Hoary (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep He has an established reputation in his field as evidenced by the number of books where he is the co/author and cumulative other mentions/reviews. Those working in the visual arts seem to have a higher bar applied to them than that in e.g. WP:BAND or WP:ATHLETE. This should not be the case.  Ty  21:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. –  Ty  21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems both notable and encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I believe that WP:BEFORE was not followed correctly in this case. In particular, under section 3, it would have been appropriate to add a  tag before proposing deletion for this article. I would request that the original proposer follows WP:BEFORE before nominating any further AfDs in future. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2010 (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.