Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Biddle


 * 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. Courcelles 21:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul Biddle

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fine art photographer. Insufficient evidence of notability. &mdash; RHaworth 09:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, Develop. Just enjoyed a visit to the website Luminous Lint, which is absolutely reputable with famous photographers like Don McCullin. Paul Biddle, on this evidence, is a witty and creative photographer making interestingly surreal artworks. The website Public Republic shows a different side of Paul Biddle, making engaging and strong artworks, and coming across as an original and inventive photographer.

Looking further, Biddle has exhibited widely, is represented in the Permanent Collection of the Royal Photographic Society, London, and has won at least 6 international competitions. (Trierenberg Super Circuit (Photographic Contest), Austria. http://www.supercircuit.at/halloffame.cfm) Obviously the WP page needs to be developed with a list recording and referencing these achievements.

I am left wanting to hear more on him on WP, please. -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Of the sources added to the article today the only one that clearly seems reliable is the Museo della Scienza e della Tecnologia "Leonardo da Vinci". Unfortunately the reference only goes to the home page of their site, and searching the site for Biddle finds nothing: . Could you (Chiswick Chap or anyone else) please point to the the specific page where Biddle is covered. The other sources are all either Paul Biddle writing about himself (including the Luminous Lint source) or a piece of gushing puffery on a web site based on citizen journalism, which is a euphemism for the process of publishing anything that anyone submits without any fact-checking. If better sources can be produced, particularly for the unspecified "numerous awards", then I'm willing to be convinced of notability, but currently we have nothing. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Further comment. On a quick search this looks like a potentially good source, if anyone has access to the full text. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Evidence Hi, I've located proof of the Austrian Super Circuit prize and put it in the article. Since the RPS website doesn't list past winners (?) it will take time or experts to collect citations, but I have no doubt the prizes were real. Hope this helps.Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How prestigious is that award? I see that the first prize is €5000, but I don't know enough about this world to evaluate whether that is considered a large or a small amount (I certainly wouldn't sneeze at it, unless the euro collapses even further). Phil Bridger (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * More Evidence I've also added proof from Photog. Journal that Biddle did indeed win their Gold Medal.

Sorry I don't know how big the Austrian competition is, but it is certainly annual and long-established. Prize seems big enough.Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources added by Chiswick Chap, along with the British Journal of Photography coverage that I linked above, are enough to demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per reliable sources and availability of them. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2011 (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.