Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omer Cordell (1st 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 is probably the best that can be said at the moment. Unless the article is strengthened further, there is likely to be another debate in the future. It has some breathing space for now. Tyrenius (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Omer cordell

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Bio written by an spa. Is he notable? (His website appears to have shut down.) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I wish you could have waited a bit, the article isn't even a day old. I just stumbled on this AFD and I am trying to fix the article, for grins and giggles.  It appears he may be notable, but I am digging up info to add to the article, so I would say give me 30 minutes to see.  Pharmboy (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Long winded Keep I did some fixes on the article (never saw or heard of him before today, not my best work). Band-aids, really (no pun intended). I find many images of these bands listed with him as photographer, and links showing he does shoot album covers, and it appears the article is accurate enough.  There is a lot more that could go into the article, but the nut of it is that he shoots for very famous people.  Here are some examples:  http://www.rockdetector.com/officialbio,2517.sm and http://www.guitariste.com/interviews/devin-townsend.html (note the copyright and his name under the images)  Now, that said, the question begs: is he notable enough?  He has 400+ ghits (not impressive by itself)  but it seems he is certainly known and respected in the industry.  I would venture a guess and say he passes the threshold of notability, based on my quick crash course in his work. Maybe barely passes, but that is the best I can muster in short order. The article needs a lot of work, which obviously isn't a reason to delete (and not why you nom'ed it, of course).  I am hoping someone with some actual experience with Omer's work can pipe in and offer better clarity on the issue.  If not, I gave my best good faith attempt at establishing the notability, that's all I can do. Pharmboy (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment on SPA/Single Purpose Account I didn't see any POV, vanity or spam issues with the article, so I am giving the benefit of the doubt via our beloved good faith policy, as the article didn't give any reason not to.  Pharmboy (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * delete He may have taken photos of some known bands, but there's nothing to show that his work is notable enough for an article. Clubmarx (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment what policy specifically does it now fail, and which way? An interview was just added and other stuff still exists to be added to the article.   Pharmboy (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * weak delete Perhaps the interview saves it, but there's only one; if others can be found this could be a keep. The fact that someone is well-known and respected in their industry does not in itself equal notability if the person has not been written about. There are people in many businesses--rare coin dealers, world-class reed instrument repair specialists, forensic technicians--who are well-known, even legendary in their own fields but have not been the subject of any books or articles. Most of the Omer Cordell Ghits are credits only, which (if I understand the WP criteria correctly) do not count as notability. Ewulp (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I added new citations for his work with Korg, MTv, plus cites for a book his photography was featured in and a media company. There are more to be made, just don't have time to fill them all in now.  I still say this meets notability, even if barely.  Pharmboy (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep seems like it's noteable enough. True about him not being THAT knows but it seems like there's a lot of respect for him in the industry as far as who he is and who he's shot. Plus he seems to have two sites www.seventhframe.com and omercordell.com, the 2nd doesn't work. Maybe someone can try contacting him by email and see? I saw some high profile bands on his site. Again, should UST pass though. Good enough I say - left by user 66.183.92.231 — 66.183.92.231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep I've done a bit of a clean-up of the page. Being in semi-regular contact with Omer, I've seen his recent photography of the mountains of the Southern Andes, and would say that his article (if given a chance to flourish) will come to show that he will be notable in the future not merely for his work with musicians. ComaDivine (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Creating work for, or used by, notable musicians or companies is not notability in its self since notability is not transferable. Yes, somebody shoots these pictures, but working in your field does not rise above the trivial. There seems to be allot of mixed up comments re:notabilty since we seem to have crystal ball statements about him and claims that he is a notable artist? business? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP. I've known his work for years now and he's well known in his phylosophy for shooting film. He's talked about frequently when the film subject rises. Keep. — 154.20.95.125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  same editing pattern as 66.183.92.231 above &mdash; Scientizzle 22:48, 31 January 2008 (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.